Machine learning models increasingly influence decisions in high-stakes settings such as finance, law and hiring, driving the need for transparent, interpretable outcomes. However, while explainable approaches can help understand the decisions being made, they may inadvertently reveal the underlying proprietary algorithm—an undesirable outcome for many practitioners. Consequently, it is crucial to balance meaningful transparency with a form of recourse that clarifies why a decision was made and offers actionable steps following which a favorable outcome can be obtained. Counterfactual explanations offer a powerful mechanism to address this need by showing how specific input changes lead to a more favorable prediction. We propose Model-Agnostic Causally Constrained Counterfactual Generation (MC3G), a novel framework that tackles limitations in the existing counterfactual methods. First, MC3G is model-agnostic: it approximates any black-box model using an explainable rule-based surrogate model. Second, this surrogate is used to generate counterfactuals that produce a favourable outcome for the original underlying black box model. Third, MC3G refines cost computation by excluding the “effort” associated with feature changes that occur automatically due to causal dependencies. By focusing only on user-initiated changes, MC3G provides a more realistic and fair representation of the effort needed to achieve a favourable outcome. We show that MC3G delivers more interpretable and actionable counterfactual recommendations compared to existing techniques all while having a lower cost. Our findings highlight MC3G’s potential to enhance transparency, accountability, and practical utility in decision-making processes that incorporate machine-learning approaches.

Abstract Assurance cases offer a structured way to present arguments and evidence for certification of systems where safety and security are critical. However, creating and evaluating these assurance cases can be complex and challenging, even for systems of moderate complexity. Therefore, there is a growing need to develop new automation methods for these tasks. While most existing assurance case tools focus on automating structural aspects, they lack the ability to fully assess the semantic coherence and correctness of the assurance arguments. In prior work, we introduced the Assurance 2.0 framework that prioritizes the reasoning process, evidence utilization, and explicit delineation of counter-claims (defeaters) and counter-evidence. In this paper, we present our approach to enhancing Assurance 2.0 with semantic rule-based analysis capabilities using common-sense reasoning and answer set programming solvers, specifically s(CASP). By employing these analysis techniques, we examine the unique semantic aspects of assurance cases, such as logical consistency, adequacy, indefeasibility, etc. The application of these analyses provides both system developers and evaluators with increased confidence about the assurance case.

Abstract Extending ASP with constraints (CASP) enhances its expressiveness and performance. This extension is not straightforward as the grounding phase, present in most ASP systems, removes variables and the links among them, and also causes a combinatorial explosion in the size of the program. Several methods to overcome this issue have been devised: restricting the constraint domains (e.g., discrete instead of dense), or the type (or number) of models that can be returned. In this paper we propose to incorporate constraints into s(ASP), a goal-directed, top-down execution model which implements ASP while retaining logical variables both during execution and in the answer sets. The resulting model, s(CASP), can constrain variables that, as in CLP, are kept during the execution and in the answer sets. s(CASP) inherits and generalizes the execution model of s(ASP) and is parametric w.r.t. the constraint solver. We describe this novel execution model and show through several examples the enhanced expressiveness of s(CASP) w.r.t. ASP, CLP, and other CASP systems. We also report improved performance w.r.t. other very mature, highly optimized ASP systems in some benchmarks.

Abstract Management of chronic diseases, such as heart failure, is a major public health problem. A standard approach to managing chronic diseases by medical community is to have a committee of experts develop guidelines that all physicians should follow. Due to their complexity, these guidelines are difficult to implement and are adopted slowly by the medical community at large. We have developed a physician advisory system that codes the entire set of clinical practice guidelines for managing heart failure using answer set programming. In this paper, we show how abductive reasoning can be deployed to find missing symptoms and conditions that the patient must exhibit in order for a treatment prescribed by a physician to work effectively. Thus, if a physician does not make an appropriate recommendation or makes a non-adherent recommendation, our system will advise the physician about symptoms and conditions that must be in effect for that recommendation to apply. It is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Abstract In inductive learning of a broad concept, an algorithm should be able to distinguish concept examples from exceptions and noisy data. An approach through recursively finding patterns in exceptions turns out to correspond to the problem of learning default theories. Default logic is what humans employ in common-sense reasoning. Therefore, learned default theories are better understood by humans. In this paper, we present new algorithms to learn default theories in the form of non-monotonic logic programs. Experiments reported in this paper show that our algorithms are a significant improvement over traditional approaches based on inductive logic programming. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Abstract Management of chronic diseases such as chronic heart failure (CHF) is a major problem in health care. A standard approach followed by the medical community is to have a committee of experts develop guidelines that all physicians should follow. These guidelines typically consist of a series of complex rules that make recommendations based on a patient's information. Due to their complexity, often the guidelines are ignored or not complied with at all. It is not even clear whether it is humanly possible to follow these guidelines due to their length and complexity. For instance, for CHF, the guidelines run nearly eighty pages. In this paper we describe a physician-advisory system for CHF management that codes the entire set of clinical practice guidelines for CHF using answer set programming (ASP). Our approach is based on developing reasoning templates, that we call knowledge patterns, and using them to systemically code the clinical guidelines for CHF as ASP rules. Use of the knowledge patterns greatly facilitates the development of our system. Given a patient's medical information, our system generates a recommendation for treatment just as a human physician would, using the guidelines. Our system works even in the presence of incomplete information.