Decision support systems based on machine learning models should be able to help users identify opportunities and threats. Popular model-agnostic explanation models can identify factors that support various predictions, answering questions like “What factors affect sales?” or “Why did sales decline?”, but do not highlight what a person should or could do to get a more desirable outcome. Counterfactual explanation approaches address intervention, and some even consider feasibility, but there has been no evaluation of their suitability for real-time applications, such as question answering. Here we address this gap by introducing a novel model-agnostic method that provides specific, feasible changes that would impact the outcomes of a complex black-box AI model for a given instance and assess its real-world utility by measuring its real-time performance and ability to find achievable changes. The method uses the instance of concern to generate high-precision explanations and then applies a secondary method to find minimally contrastive and maximally probable high-precision counterfactual explanations, while limiting contrasted features to changes that are achievable. We demonstrate that using this method, it is possible to find such explanations quickly enough for use in real-time systems. High-precision achievable minimally contrastive explanations would be useful in applications where people seek remedial actions or question how effective a proposed remedy is likely to be.

“Energy” is probably the most important term in science and technology. The reason is energy can be converted while it is overall conserved, and thereby correlates changes of a wide variety. Despite its successful use in many areas over more than a century, an analysis of current literature shows that definitions of what energy is and explanations why it is conserved are inconsistent. With regard to energy forms not even a definition was found, and examples given are often wrong. Looking at two interacting objects in the most simple situations, with energy conservation but without conversion, a consistent understanding of energy and its conservation can be derived. Based on it, the systematic set of energy forms with a clear definition of each is then presented.

Artificial intelligence methods, especially artificial neural networks (ANNs), have recently been successfully used more and more frequently in the mathematical description of physical phenomena in the processing of metallic materials. Results based on measured data of phenomena in real production are often, at least locally, different or more complex than the results of established theories. In general, ANN models, which mostly work as "black boxes", allow us to improve production efficiency by themselves. The fact is, however, that a better understanding of the phenomena under consideration, which is otherwise enabled by classical mathematical approaches in the form of explicit mathematical formulas, could ensure even greater efficiency. In this article, therefore, a general concept is proposed to explain the discussed phenomena in metallic materials. The application of the concept is illustrated on the example of hot extrusion of aluminum alloy 6082, where CAE is used as an artificial neural network to model the phenomenon and predict the key parameters of the phenomenon. ChatGPT is used to explain the results according to the proposed concept. The basic idea is to enable practicing engineers to better understand the considered phenomena and results obtained by ANNs.

In the realm of mathematics education, self-explanation stands as a crucial learning mechanism, allowing learners to articulate their comprehension of intricate mathematical concepts and strategies. As digital learning platforms grow in prominence, there are mounting opportunities to collect and utilize mathematical self-explanations. However, these opportunities are met with challenges in automated evaluation. Automatic scoring of mathematical self-explanations is crucial for preprocessing tasks, including the categorization of learner responses, identification of common misconceptions, and the creation of tailored feedback and model solutions. Nevertheless, this task is hindered by the dearth of ample sample sets. Our research introduces a semi-supervised technique using the Language Learning Model (LLM), specifically its Japanese variant, to enrich datasets for the automated scoring of mathematical self-explanations. We rigorously evaluated the quality of self-explanations across five datasets, ranging from human-evaluated originals to ones devoid of original content. Our results show that combining LLM-based explanations with mathematical material significantly improves the model's accuracy. Interestingly, there's an optimal limit to how much synthetic self-explanation data can bene-fit the system. Exceeding this limit doesn't further improve outcomes. This study thus highlights the need for careful consideration when integrating synthetic data into solutions, especially within the mathematics discipline.

Molecular methods have revolutionised virtually every area of biology, and metazoan phylogenetics is no exception: molecular phylogenies, molecular clocks, comparative phylogenomics, and developmental genetics have collectively transformed our understanding of the evolutionary history of animals. Moreover, the diversity of methods and models within molecular phylogenetics has resulted in significant disagreement among molecular phylogenies as well as between these and traditional phylogenies. Here, I argue that tackling this multifaceted problem lies in integrating evidence to infer the best evolutionary scenario. I begin with an overview of recent developments in early metazoan phylogenetics, followed by a discussion of key conceptual issues in phylogenetics revolving around phylogenetic evidence and theory. I then argue that integration of different kinds of evidence is necessary for arriving at the best evolutionary scenario rather than the best-fitting cladogram. Finally, I discuss the prospects of this view in stimulating interdisciplinary cross-talk in early metazoan research and beyond.

We discuss what we believe could be an improvement in future discussions of the ever-changing brain. We do so by distinguishing different types of brain variability and outlining methods suitable to analyse them. We argue that, when studying brain and behaviour data, classical methods such as regression analysis and more advanced approaches both aim to decompose the total variance into sensible variance components. In parallel, we argue that a distinction needs to be made between innate and acquired brain variability. For varying high-dimensional brain data, we present methods useful to extract their low-dimensional representations. Finally, to trace potential causes and predict plausible consequences of brain variability, we discuss how to combine statistical principles and neurobiological insights to make associative, explanatory, predictive, and causal enquires; but cautions are needed to raise association- or prediction-based neurobiological findings to causal claims.