Henry Salgado

Henry Salgado, Meagan R. Kendall, Martine Ceberio

Explainable AI (XAI) methods identify which features are relevant to a model's predictions but often fail to clarify why certain decisions are made. In this work, we present a novel method that integrates causality with argument-based reasoning to explain why models may be making predictions. Our approach first identifies causal relationships among variables using causal discovery methods and then translates these into a Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF) to represent supportive and opposing interactions among features. By using semi-stable semantics, we find extensions of features that explain why certain outcomes may have been chosen. We demonstrate our method on two benchmark datasets and compare its results against standard post-hoc explainability approaches.

Henry Salgado, Meagan R. Kendall, Martine Ceberio et al.

This paper examines the opportunities, limitations, and practical considerations associated with the use of large language models (LLMs) in qualitative research. Drawing on a multidisciplinary perspective that combines expertise in qualitative methods and explainable AI, the paper argues that responsible integration of LLMs into qualitative workflows requires researchers to engage critically with a curated set of technical parameters, that is, context window constraints, temperature and top-p sampling settings, user and system prompt design, and model documentation in the form of system cards. The paper situates these considerations within the epistemological commitments of qualitative research, including reflexivity, positionality, and interpretive judgment, and discusses how the opacity of contemporary LLMs differs from earlier natural language processing tools such as topic models and lexicon-based sentiment analyzers.

Henry Salgado, Meagan R. Kendall, Martine Ceberio

Understanding causal relationships among features is fundamental for explaining machine learning model decisions. However, traditional causal discovery methods face challenges with categorical variables due to numerical instability in conditional independence testing. We propose a dual-encoding causal discovery approach that addresses these limitations by running constraint-based algorithms with complementary encoding strategies and merging results through majority voting. Applied to the Titanic dataset, our method identifies causal structures that align with established explainable methods.

Henry Salgado, Meagan R. Kendall, Martine Ceberio

In this work, we propose a simple and computationally efficient framework for evaluating whether machine learning models align with the structure of the data they learn from; that is, whether the model says what the data says. Unlike existing interpretability methods that focus exclusively on explaining model behavior, our approach establishes a baseline derived directly from the data itself. Drawing inspiration from Rubin's Potential Outcomes Framework, we quantify how strongly each feature separates the two outcome groups in a binary classification task, moving beyond traditional descriptive statistics to estimate each feature's effect on the outcome. By comparing these data-derived feature rankings with model-based explanations, we provide practitioners with an interpretable and model-agnostic method for assessing model-data alignment.