Hua Shen

Tuc Nguyen, James Michels, Hua Shen et al.

In Explainable AI (XAI), counterfactual explanations (CEs) are a well-studied method to communicate feature relevance through contrastive reasoning of "what if" to explain AI models' predictions. However, they only focus on important (i.e., relevant) features and largely disregard less important (i.e., irrelevant) ones. Such irrelevant features can be crucial in many applications, especially when users need to ensure that an AI model's decisions are not affected or biased against specific attributes such as gender, race, religion, or political affiliation. To address this gap, the concept of alterfactual explanations (AEs) has been proposed. AEs explore an alternative reality of "no matter what", where irrelevant features are substituted with alternative features (e.g., "republicans" -> "democrats") within the same attribute (e.g., "politics") while maintaining a similar prediction output. This serves to validate whether AI model predictions are influenced by the specified attributes. Despite the promise of AEs, there is a lack of computational approaches to systematically generate them, particularly in the text domain, where creating AEs for AI text classifiers presents unique challenges. This paper addresses this challenge by formulating AE generation as an optimization problem and introducing MoMatterXAI, a novel algorithm that generates AEs for text classification tasks. Our approach achieves high fidelity of up to 95% while preserving context similarity of over 90% across multiple models and datasets. A human study further validates the effectiveness of AEs in explaining AI text classifiers to end users. All codes will be publicly available.

Nicholas Clark, Hua Shen, Bill Howe et al.

LLMs increasingly serve as tools for knowledge acquisition, yet users cannot effectively specify how they want information presented. When users request that LLMs "cite reputable sources," "express appropriate uncertainty," or "include multiple perspectives," they discover that current interfaces provide no structured way to articulate these preferences. The result is prompt sharing folklore: community-specific copied prompts passed through trust relationships rather than based on measured efficacy. We propose the Epistemic Alignment Framework, a set of ten challenges in knowledge transmission derived from the philosophical literature of epistemology, concerning issues such as evidence quality assessment and calibration of testimonial reliance. The framework serves as a structured intermediary between user needs and system capabilities, creating a common vocabulary to bridge the gap between what users want and what systems deliver. Through a thematic analysis of custom prompts and personalization strategies shared on online communities where these issues are actively discussed, we find users develop elaborate workarounds to address each of the challenges. We then apply our framework to two prominent model providers, OpenAI and Anthropic, through content analysis of their documented policies and product features. Our analysis shows that while these providers have partially addressed the challenges we identified, they fail to establish adequate mechanisms for specifying epistemic preferences, lack transparency about how preferences are implemented, and offer no verification tools to confirm whether preferences were followed. For AI developers, the Epistemic Alignment Framework offers concrete guidance for supporting diverse approaches to knowledge; for users, it works toward information delivery that aligns with their specific needs rather than defaulting to one-size-fits-all approaches.