Argumentative Reward Learning: Reasoning About Human Preferences

We define a novel neuro-symbolic framework, argumentative reward learning, which combines preference-based argumentation with existing approaches to reinforcement learning from human feedback. Our method improves prior work by generalising human preferences, reducing the burden on the user and increasing the robustness of the reward model. We demonstrate this with a number of experiments.

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.

On Interactive Explanations as Non-Monotonic Reasoning

Recent work shows issues of consistency with explanations, with methods generating local explanations that seem reasonable instance-wise, but that are inconsistent across instances. This suggests not only that instance-wise explanations can be unreliable, but mainly that, when interacting with a system via multiple inputs, a user may actually lose confidence in the system. To better analyse this issue, in this work we treat explanations as objects that can be subject to reasoning and present a formal model of the interactive scenario between user and system, via sequences of inputs, outputs, and explanations. We argue that explanations can be thought of as committing to some model behaviour (even if only prima facie), suggesting a form of entailment, which, we argue, should be thought of as non-monotonic. This allows: 1) to solve some considered inconsistencies in explanation, such as via a specificity relation; 2) to consider properties from the non-monotonic reasoning literature and discuss their desirability, gaining more insight on the interactive explanation scenario.

A Federated Cox Model with Non-Proportional Hazards

Recent research has shown the potential for neural networks to improve upon classical survival models such as the Cox model, which is widely used in clinical practice. Neural networks, however, typically rely on data that are centrally available, whereas healthcare data are frequently held in secure silos. We present a federated Cox model that accommodates this data setting and also relaxes the proportional hazards assumption, allowing time-varying covariate effects. In this latter respect, our model does not require explicit specification of the time-varying effects, reducing upfront organisational costs compared to previous works. We experiment with publicly available clinical datasets and demonstrate that the federated model is able to perform as well as a standard model.

GLANCE: Global to Local Architecture-Neutral Concept-based Explanations

Most of the current explainability techniques focus on capturing the importance of features in input space. However, given the complexity of models and data-generating processes, the resulting explanations are far from being `complete', in that they lack an indication of feature interactions and visualization of their `effect'. In this work, we propose a novel twin-surrogate explainability framework to explain the decisions made by any CNN-based image classifier (irrespective of the architecture). For this, we first disentangle latent features from the classifier, followed by aligning these features to observed/human-defined `context' features. These aligned features form semantically meaningful concepts that are used for extracting a causal graph depicting the `perceived' data-generating process, describing the inter- and intra-feature interactions between unobserved latent features and observed `context' features. This causal graph serves as a global model from which local explanations of different forms can be extracted. Specifically, we provide a generator to visualize the `effect' of interactions among features in latent space and draw feature importance therefrom as local explanations. Our framework utilizes adversarial knowledge distillation to faithfully learn a representation from the classifiers' latent space and use it for extracting visual explanations. We use the styleGAN-v2 architecture with an additional regularization term to enforce disentanglement and alignment. We demonstrate and evaluate explanations obtained with our framework on Morpho-MNIST and on the FFHQ human faces dataset. Our framework is available at \url{https://github.com/koriavinash1/GLANCE-Explanations}.

Hierarchical Symbolic Reasoning in Hyperbolic Space for Deep Discriminative Models

Explanations for \emph{black-box} models help us understand model decisions as well as provide information on model biases and inconsistencies. Most of the current explainability techniques provide a single level of explanation, often in terms of feature importance scores or feature attention maps in input space. Our focus is on explaining deep discriminative models at \emph{multiple levels of abstraction}, from fine-grained to fully abstract explanations. We achieve this by using the natural properties of \emph{hyperbolic geometry} to more efficiently model a hierarchy of symbolic features and generate \emph{hierarchical symbolic rules} as part of our explanations. Specifically, for any given deep discriminative model, we distill the underpinning knowledge by discretisation of the continuous latent space using vector quantisation to form symbols, followed by a \emph{hyperbolic reasoning block} to induce an \emph{abstraction tree}. We traverse the tree to extract explanations in terms of symbolic rules and its corresponding visual semantics. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method on the MNIST and AFHQ high-resolution animal faces dataset. Our framework is available at \url{https://github.com/koriavinash1/SymbolicInterpretability}.

Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks

We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human or artificial) agents to argue over time about the probability of outcomes, e.g. the winner of a political election or a fluctuation in inflation rates, whilst flagging perceived irrationality in the agents' behaviour with a view to improving their forecasting accuracy. FAFs include five argument types, amounting to standard pro/con arguments, as in bipolar argumentation, as well as novel proposal arguments and increase/decrease amendment arguments. We adapt an existing gradual semantics for bipolar argumentation to determine the aggregated dialectical strength of proposal arguments and define irrational behaviour. We then give a simple aggregation function which produces a final group forecast from rational agents' individual forecasts. We identify and study properties of FAFs and conduct an empirical evaluation which signals FAFs' potential to increase the forecasting accuracy of participants.

Explaining Causal Models with Argumentation: the Case of Bi-variate Reinforcement

Causal models are playing an increasingly important role in machine learning, particularly in the realm of explainable AI. We introduce a conceptualisation for generating argumentation frameworks (AFs) from causal models for the purpose of forging explanations for the models' outputs. The conceptualisation is based on reinterpreting desirable properties of semantics of AFs as explanation moulds, which are means for characterising the relations in the causal model argumentatively. We demonstrate our methodology by reinterpreting the property of bi-variate reinforcement as an explanation mould to forge bipolar AFs as explanations for the outputs of causal models. We perform a theoretical evaluation of these argumentative explanations, examining whether they satisfy a range of desirable explanatory and argumentative properties.

Causal Discovery and Injection for Feed-Forward Neural Networks

Neural networks have proven to be effective at solving a wide range of problems but it is often unclear whether they learn any meaningful causal relationship: this poses a problem for the robustness of neural network models and their use for high-stakes decisions. We propose a novel method overcoming this issue by injecting knowledge in the form of (possibly partial) causal graphs into feed-forward neural networks, so that the learnt model is guaranteed to conform to the graph, hence adhering to expert knowledge. This knowledge may be given up-front or during the learning process, to improve the model through human-AI collaboration. We apply our method to synthetic and real (tabular) data showing that it is robust against noise and can improve causal discovery and prediction performance in low data regimes.

Argumentative Explanations for Pattern-Based Text Classifiers

Recent works in Explainable AI mostly address the transparency issue of black-box models or create explanations for any kind of models (i.e., they are model-agnostic), while leaving explanations of interpretable models largely underexplored. In this paper, we fill this gap by focusing on explanations for a specific interpretable model, namely pattern-based logistic regression (PLR) for binary text classification. We do so because, albeit interpretable, PLR is challenging when it comes to explanations. In particular, we found that a standard way to extract explanations from this model does not consider relations among the features, making the explanations hardly plausible to humans. Hence, we propose AXPLR, a novel explanation method using (forms of) computational argumentation to generate explanations (for outputs computed by PLR) which unearth model agreements and disagreements among the features. Specifically, we use computational argumentation as follows: we see features (patterns) in PLR as arguments in a form of quantified bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) and extract attacks and supports between arguments based on specificity of the arguments; we understand logistic regression as a gradual semantics for these QBAFs, used to determine the arguments' dialectic strength; and we study standard properties of gradual semantics for QBAFs in the context of our argumentative re-interpretation of PLR, sanctioning its suitability for explanatory purposes. We then show how to extract intuitive explanations (for outputs computed by PLR) from the constructed QBAFs. Finally, we conduct an empirical evaluation and two experiments in the context of human-AI collaboration to demonstrate the advantages of our resulting AXPLR method.