Hamed Ayoobi

Hamed Ayoobi, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni

Neural networks (NNs) have various applications in AI, but explaining their decisions remains challenging. Existing approaches often focus on explaining how changing individual inputs affects NNs' outputs. However, an explanation that is consistent with the input-output behaviour of an NN is not necessarily faithful to the actual mechanics thereof. In this paper, we exploit relationships between multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) and quantitative argumentation frameworks (QAFs) to create argumentative explanations for the mechanics of MLPs. Our SpArX method first sparsifies the MLP while maintaining as much of the original structure as possible. It then translates the sparse MLP into an equivalent QAF to shed light on the underlying decision process of the MLP, producing global and/or local explanations. We demonstrate experimentally that SpArX can give more faithful explanations than existing approaches, while simultaneously providing deeper insights into the actual reasoning process of MLPs.

Hamed Ayoobi, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni

We propose ProtoArgNet, a novel interpretable deep neural architecture for image classification in the spirit of prototypical-part-learning as found, e.g., in ProtoPNet. While earlier approaches associate every class with multiple prototypical-parts, ProtoArgNet uses super-prototypes that combine prototypical-parts into a unified class representation. This is done by combining local activations of prototypes in an MLP-like manner, enabling the localization of prototypes and learning (non-linear) spatial relationships among them. By leveraging a form of argumentation, ProtoArgNet is capable of providing both supporting (i.e. `this looks like that') and attacking (i.e. `this differs from that') explanations. We demonstrate on several datasets that ProtoArgNet outperforms state-of-the-art prototypical-part-learning approaches. Moreover, the argumentation component in ProtoArgNet is customisable to the user's cognitive requirements by a process of sparsification, which leads to more compact explanations compared to state-of-the-art approaches.

Tomas van der Velde, Hamed Ayoobi, Hamidreza Kasaei

As robots become more widely available outside industrial settings, the need for reliable object grasping and manipulation is increasing. In such environments, robots must be able to grasp and manipulate novel objects in various situations. This paper presents GraspCaps, a novel architecture based on Capsule Networks for generating per-point 6D grasp configurations for familiar objects. GraspCaps extracts a rich feature vector of the objects present in the point cloud input, which is then used to generate per-point grasp vectors. This approach allows the network to learn specific grasping strategies for each object category. In addition to GraspCaps, the paper also presents a method for generating a large object-grasping dataset using simulated annealing. The obtained dataset is then used to train the GraspCaps network. Through extensive experiments, we evaluate the performance of the proposed approach, particularly in terms of the success rate of grasping familiar objects in challenging real and simulated scenarios. The experimental results showed that the overall object-grasping performance of the proposed approach is significantly better than the selected baseline. This superior performance highlights the effectiveness of the GraspCaps in achieving successful object grasping across various scenarios.

Adam Dejl, Dekai Zhang, Hamed Ayoobi et al.

Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) often represent conflicts between features, arising naturally during training as the network learns to integrate diverse and potentially disagreeing inputs to better predict the target variable. Despite their relevance to the ``reasoning'' processes of these models, the properties and implications of conflicts for understanding and explaining ANNs remain underexplored. In this paper, we develop a rigorous theory of conflicts in ANNs and demonstrate their impact on ANN explainability through two case studies. In the first case study, we use our theory of conflicts to inspire the design of a novel feature attribution method, which we call Conflict-Aware Feature-wise Explanations (CAFE). CAFE separates the positive and negative influences of features and biases, enabling more faithful explanations for models applied to tabular data. In the second case study, we take preliminary steps towards understanding the role of conflicts in out-of-distribution (OOD) scenarios. Through our experiments, we identify potentially useful connections between model conflicts and different kinds of distributional shifts in tabular and image data. Overall, our findings demonstrate the importance of accounting for conflicts in the development of more reliable explanation methods for AI systems, which are crucial for the beneficial use of these systems in the society.

Francesco Leofante, Hamed Ayoobi, Adam Dejl et al.

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.

Hamed Ayoobi, Nico Potyka, Anna Rapberger et al.

As the use of AI in society grows, addressing emerging biases is essential to prevent systematic discrimination. Several bias detection methods have been proposed, but, with few exceptions, these tend to ignore transparency. Instead, interpretability and explainability are core requirements for algorithmic fairness, even more so than for other algorithmic solutions, given the human-oriented nature of fairness. We present ABIDE (Argumentative BIas detection by DEbate), a novel framework that structures bias detection transparently as debate, guided by an underlying argument graph as understood in (formal and computational) argumentation. The arguments are about the success chances of groups in local neighbourhoods and the significance of these neighbourhoods. We evaluate ABIDE experimentally and demonstrate its strengths in performance against an argumentative baseline.