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.

Employee attrition is an important and complex problem that can directly affect an organisation's competitiveness and performance. Explaining the reasons why employees leave an organisation is a key human resource management challenge due to the high costs and time required to attract and keep talented employees. Businesses therefore aim to increase employee retention rates to minimise their costs and maximise their performance. Machine learning (ML) has been applied in various aspects of human resource management including attrition prediction to provide businesses with insights on proactive measures on how to prevent talented employees from quitting. Among these ML methods, the best performance has been reported by ensemble or deep neural networks, which by nature constitute black box techniques and thus cannot be easily interpreted. To enable the understanding of these models' reasoning several explainability frameworks have been proposed. Counterfactual explanation methods have attracted considerable attention in recent years since they can be used to explain and recommend actions to be performed to obtain the desired outcome. However current counterfactual explanations methods focus on optimising the changes to be made on individual cases to achieve the desired outcome. In the attrition problem it is important to be able to foresee what would be the effect of an organisation's action to a group of employees where the goal is to prevent them from leaving the company. Therefore, in this paper we propose the use of counterfactual explanations focusing on multiple attrition cases from historical data, to identify the optimum interventions that an organisation needs to make to its practices/policies to prevent or minimise attrition probability for these cases.

The recent evolution in Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods, in particular in the field of argumentation mining, has the potential to transform the way we interact with text, supporting the interpretation and analysis of complex discourse and debates. Can a graphic visualisation of complex argumentation enable a more critical interpretation of the arguments? This study focuses on analysing the impact of argumentation graphs (AGs) compared with regular texts for supporting argument interpretation. We found that AGs outperformed the extrinsic metrics throughout most UEQ scales as well as the NASA-TLX workload in all the terms but not in temporal or physical demand. The AG model was liked by a more significant number of participants, despite the fact that both the text-based and AG models yielded comparable outcomes in the critical interpretation in terms of working memory and altering participants decisions. The interpretation process involves reference to argumentation schemes (linked to critical questions (CQs)) in AGs. Interestingly, we found that the participants chose more CQs (using argument schemes in AGs) when they were less familiar with the argument topics, making AG schemes on some scales (relatively) supportive of the interpretation process. Therefore, AGs were considered to deliver a more critical approach to argument interpretation, especially with unfamiliar topics. Based on the 25 participants conducted in this study, it appears that AG has demonstrated an overall positive effect on the argument interpretation process.

Abstract: Explainable AI (XAI) systems are sociotechnical in nature; thus, they are subject to the sociotechnical gap -- divide between the technical affordances and the social needs. However, charting this gap is challenging. In the context of XAI, we argue that charting the gap improves our problem understanding, which can reflexively provide actionable insights to improve explainability. Utilizing two case studies in distinct domains, we empirically derive a framework that facilitates systematic charting of the sociotechnical gap by connecting AI guidelines in the context of XAI and elucidating how to use them to address the gap. We apply the framework to a third case in a new domain, showcasing its affordances. Finally, we discuss conceptual implications of the framework, share practical considerations in its operationalization, and offer guidance on transferring it to new contexts.

Recent advancements in AI have coincided with ever-increasing efforts in the research community to investigate, classify and evaluate various methods aimed at making AI models explainable. However, most of existing attempts present a method-centric view of eXplainable AI (XAI) which is typically meaningful only for domain experts. There is an apparent lack of a robust qualitative and quantitative performance framework that evaluates the suitability of explanations for different types of users. We survey relevant efforts, and then, propose a unified, inclusive and user-centred taxonomy for XAI based on the principles of General System's Theory, which serves us as a basis for evaluating the appropriateness of XAI approaches for all user types, including both developers and end users.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to improve the transparency of machine learning (ML) pipelines. We systematize the increasingly growing (but fragmented) microcosm of studies that develop and utilize XAI methods for defensive and offensive cybersecurity tasks. We identify 3 cybersecurity stakeholders, i.e., model users, designers, and adversaries, who utilize XAI for 4 distinct objectives within an ML pipeline, namely 1) XAI-enabled user assistance, 2) XAI-enabled model verification, 3) explanation verification & robustness, and 4) offensive use of explanations. Our analysis of the literature indicates that many of the XAI applications are designed with little understanding of how they might be integrated into analyst workflows -- user studies for explanation evaluation are conducted in only 14% of the cases. The security literature sometimes also fails to disentangle the role of the various stakeholders, e.g., by providing explanations to model users and designers while also exposing them to adversaries. Additionally, the role of model designers is particularly minimized in the security literature. To this end, we present an illustrative tutorial for model designers, demonstrating how XAI can help with model verification. We also discuss scenarios where interpretability by design may be a better alternative. The systematization and the tutorial enable us to challenge several assumptions, and present open problems that can help shape the future of XAI research within cybersecurity.