The notion of concept drift refers to the phenomenon that the distribution generating the observed data changes over time. If drift is present, machine learning models can become inaccurate and need adjustment. While there do exist methods to detect concept drift or to adjust models in the presence of observed drift, the question of explaining drift, i.e., describing the potentially complex and high dimensional change of distribution in a human-understandable fashion, has hardly been considered so far. This problem is of importance since it enables an inspection of the most prominent characteristics of how and where drift manifests itself. Hence, it enables human understanding of the change and it increases acceptance of life-long learning models. In this paper, we present a novel technology characterizing concept drift in terms of the characteristic change of spatial features based on various explanation techniques. To do so, we propose a methodology to reduce the explanation of concept drift to an explanation of models that are trained in a suitable way extracting relevant information regarding the drift. This way a large variety of explanation schemes is available. Thus, a suitable method can be selected for the problem of drift explanation at hand. We outline the potential of this approach and demonstrate its usefulness in several examples.

In the context of abstract argumentation, we present the benefits of considering temporality, i.e. the order in which arguments are enunciated, as well as causality. We propose a formal method to rewrite the concepts of acyclic abstract argumentation frameworks into an action language, that allows us to model the evolution of the world, and to establish causal relationships between the enunciation of arguments and their consequences, whether direct or indirect. An Answer Set Programming implementation is also proposed, as well as perspectives towards explanations.

Rik Chomko is co-founder and CEO of InRule Technology, an intelligence automation company providing integrated decision-making, machine learning and process automation software to the enterprise. Chomko started the company in 2002 with CTO Loren Goodman. He became chief executive officer in 2015 after serving as chief operating officer since 2012. Chomko also served as chief product officer prior to his role as COO. Before co-founding InRule, Chomko was chief technology officer with Calypso Systems, a consulting firm.

Trust is an important aspect of human life. It provides instrumental value in allowing us to collaborate on and defer actions to others, and intrinsic value in our intimate relationships with romantic partners, family, and friends. In this paper I examine the nature of trust from a philosophical perspective. Specifically I propose to view trust as a context-sensitive state in a manner that will be made precise. The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, I make the simple observation that an individual's trust is typically both action- and context-sensitive. Action-sensitivity means that trust may obtain between a given truster and trustee for only certain actions. Context-sensitivity means that trust may obtain between a given truster and trustee, regarding the same action, in some conditions and not others. I also opine about what kinds of things may play the role of the truster, trustee, and action. Second, I advance a theory for the nature of contextual trust. I propose that the answer to "What does it mean for $A$ to trust $B$ to do $X$ in context $C$?" has two conditions. First, $A$ must take $B$'s doing $X$ as a means towards one of $A$'s ends. Second, $A$ must adopt an unquestioning attitude concerning $B$'s doing $X$ in context $C$. This unquestioning attitude is similar to the attitude introduced in Nguyen 2021. Finally, we explore how contextual trust can help us make sense of trust in general non-interpersonal settings, notably that of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) assigns paramount importance to the problem of user trust in opaque computational models, yet does little to give trust diagnostic or even conceptual criteria. I propose that contextual trust is a natural fit for the task by illustrating that model transparency and explainability map nicely into our construction of the contexts $C$.

Long-sequence transformers are designed to improve the representation of longer texts by language models and their performance on downstream document-level tasks. However, not much is understood about the quality of token-level predictions in long-form models. We investigate the performance of such architectures in the context of document classification with unsupervised rationale extraction. We find standard soft attention methods to perform significantly worse when combined with the Longformer language model. We propose a compositional soft attention architecture that applies RoBERTa sentence-wise to extract plausible rationales at the token-level. We find this method to significantly outperform Longformer-driven baselines on sentiment classification datasets, while also exhibiting significantly lower runtimes.

Risky and crowded environments (RCE) contain abstract sources of risk and uncertainty, which are perceived differently by humans, leading to a variety of behaviors. Thus, robots deployed in RCEs, need to exhibit diverse perception and planning capabilities in order to interpret other human agents' behavior and act accordingly in such environments. To understand this problem domain, we conducted a study to explore human path choices in RCEs, enabling better robotic navigational explainable AI (XAI) designs. We created a novel COVID-19 pandemic grocery shopping scenario which had time-risk tradeoffs, and acquired users' path preferences. We found that participants showcase a variety of path preferences: from risky and urgent to safe and relaxed. To model users' decision making, we evaluated three popular risk models (Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), Conditional Value at Risk (CVAR), and Expected Risk (ER). We found that CPT captured people's decision making more accurately than CVaR and ER, corroborating theoretical results that CPT is more expressive and inclusive than CVaR and ER. We also found that people's self assessments of risk and time-urgency do not correlate with their path preferences in RCEs. Finally, we conducted thematic analysis of open-ended questions, providing crucial design insights for robots is RCE. Thus, through this study, we provide novel and critical insights about human behavior and perception to help design better navigational explainable AI (XAI) in RCEs.

The field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has greatly advanced in recent years, but progress has mainly been made in computer vision and natural language processing. For time series, where the input is often not interpretable, only limited research on XAI is available. In this work, we put forward a virtual inspection layer, that transforms the time series to an interpretable representation and allows to propagate relevance attributions to this representation via local XAI methods like layer-wise relevance propagation (LRP). In this way, we extend the applicability of a family of XAI methods to domains (e.g. speech) where the input is only interpretable after a transformation. Here, we focus on the Fourier transformation which is prominently applied in the interpretation of time series and LRP and refer to our method as DFT-LRP. We demonstrate the usefulness of DFT-LRP in various time series classification settings like audio and electronic health records. We showcase how DFT-LRP reveals differences in the classification strategies of models trained in different domains (e.g., time vs. frequency domain) or helps to discover how models act on spurious correlations in the data.

In this paper, we argue for a paradigm shift from the current model of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), which may be counter-productive to better human decision making. In early decision support systems, we assumed that we could give people recommendations and that they would consider them, and then follow them when required. However, research found that people often ignore recommendations because they do not trust them; or perhaps even worse, people follow them blindly, even when the recommendations are wrong. Explainable artificial intelligence mitigates this by helping people to understand how and why models give certain recommendations. However, recent research shows that people do not always engage with explainability tools enough to help improve decision making. The assumption that people will engage with recommendations and explanations has proven to be unfounded. We argue this is because we have failed to account for two things. First, recommendations (and their explanations) take control from human decision makers, limiting their agency. Second, giving recommendations and explanations does not align with the cognitive processes employed by people making decisions. This position paper proposes a new conceptual framework called Evaluative AI for explainable decision support. This is a machine-in-the-loop paradigm in which decision support tools provide evidence for and against decisions made by people, rather than provide recommendations to accept or reject. We argue that this mitigates issues of over- and under-reliance on decision support tools, and better leverages human expertise in decision making.

We introduce and evaluate an eXplainable Goal Recognition (XGR) model that uses the Weight of Evidence (WoE) framework to explain goal recognition problems. Our model provides human-centered explanations that answer why? and why not? questions. We computationally evaluate the performance of our system over eight different domains. Using a human behavioral study to obtain the ground truth from human annotators, we further show that the XGR model can successfully generate human-like explanations. We then report on a study with 60 participants who observe agents playing Sokoban game and then receive explanations of the goal recognition output. We investigate participants' understanding obtained by explanations through task prediction, explanation satisfaction, and trust.

While much research focused on producing explanations, it is still unclear how the produced explanations' quality can be evaluated in a meaningful way. Today's predominant approach is to quantify explanations using proxy scores which compare explanations to (human-annotated) gold explanations. This approach assumes that explanations which reach higher proxy scores will also provide a greater benefit to human users. In this paper, we present problems of this approach. Concretely, we (i) formulate desired characteristics of explanation quality, (ii) describe how current evaluation practices violate them, and (iii) support our argumentation with initial evidence from a crowdsourcing case study in which we investigate the explanation quality of state-of-the-art explainable question answering systems. We find that proxy scores correlate poorly with human quality ratings and, additionally, become less expressive the more often they are used (i.e. following Goodhart's law). Finally, we propose guidelines to enable a meaningful evaluation of explanations to drive the development of systems that provide tangible benefits to human users.