Open-textured terms in written rules are typically settled through interpretive argumentation. Ongoing work has attempted to catalogue the schemes used in such interpretive argumentation. But how can the use of these schemes affect the way in which people actually use and reason over the proper interpretations of open-textured terms? Using the interpretive argument-eliciting game Aporia as our framework, we carried out an empirical study to answer this question. Differing from previous work, we did not allow participants to argue for interpretations arbitrarily, but to only use arguments that fit with a given set of interpretive argument templates. Finally, we analyze the results captured by this new dataset, specifically focusing on practical implications for the development of interpretation-capable artificial reasoners.

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. By making conceptual and practical contributions to understanding the sociotechnical gap in XAI, the framework expands the XAI design space.

Welcome to our January 2023 monthly digest, where you can catch up with any AIhub stories you may have missed, get the low-down on recent events, and much more. This month, we highlight some of the projects pertaining to low-resource languages, hear about counterfactual explanations for land cover mapping, and find out about machine learning techniques for night-time remote sensing. We are delighted to share the second article in our focus series on "AI around the world": Natural Language Processing for low-resource languages. This time we enter the domain of natural language processing and highlight some of the work and initiatives being carried out on low-resource languages. In our latest episode of New voices in AI, Srija Chakraborty tells us about her work applying machine learning techniques to night-time remote sensing for measuring nightlights from a variety of natural and artificial sources.

Deep visual models have widespread applications in high-stake domains. Hence, their black-box nature is currently attracting a large interest of the research community. We present the first survey in Explainable AI that focuses on the methods and metrics for interpreting deep visual models. Covering the landmark contributions along the state-of-the-art, we not only provide a taxonomic organization of the existing techniques, but also excavate a range of evaluation metrics and collate them as measures of different properties of model explanations. Along the insightful discussion on the current trends, we also discuss the challenges and future avenues for this research direction.

Vehicles are complex Cyber Physical Systems (CPS) that operate in a variety of environments, and the likelihood of failure of one or more subsystems, such as the engine, transmission, brakes, and fuel, can result in unscheduled downtime and incur high maintenance or repair costs. In order to prevent these issues, it is crucial to continuously monitor the health of various subsystems and identify abnormal sensor channel behavior. Data-driven Digital Twin (DT) systems are capable of such a task. Current DT technologies utilize various Deep Learning (DL) techniques that are constrained by the lack of justification or explanation for their predictions. This inability of these opaque systems can influence decision-making and raises user trust concerns. This paper presents a solution to this issue, where the TwinExplainer system, with its three-layered architectural pipeline, explains the predictions of an automotive DT. Such a system can assist automotive stakeholders in understanding the global scale of the sensor channels and how they contribute towards generic DT predictions. TwinExplainer can also visualize explanations for both normal and abnormal local predictions computed by the DT.

The last decade witnessed an ever-increasing stream of successes in Machine Learning (ML). These successes offer clear evidence that ML is bound to become pervasive in a wide range of practical uses, including many that directly affect humans. Unfortunately, the operation of the most successful ML models is incomprehensible for human decision makers. As a result, the use of ML models, especially in high-risk and safety-critical settings is not without concern. In recent years, there have been efforts on devising approaches for explaining ML models. Most of these efforts have focused on so-called model-agnostic approaches. However, all model-agnostic and related approaches offer no guarantees of rigor, hence being referred to as non-formal. For example, such non-formal explanations can be consistent with different predictions, which renders them useless in practice. This paper overviews the ongoing research efforts on computing rigorous model-based explanations of ML models; these being referred to as formal explanations. These efforts encompass a variety of topics, that include the actual definitions of explanations, the characterization of the complexity of computing explanations, the currently best logical encodings for reasoning about different ML models, and also how to make explanations interpretable for human decision makers, among others.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms have become ubiquitous. Although they offer a wide range of benefits, their adoption in decision-critical fields is limited by their lack of interpretability, particularly with textual data. Moreover, with more data available than ever before, it has become increasingly important to explain automated predictions. Generally, users find it difficult to understand the underlying computational processes and interact with the models, especially when the models fail to generate the outcomes or explanations, or both, correctly. This problem highlights the growing need for users to better understand the models' inner workings and gain control over their actions. This dissertation focuses on two fundamental challenges of addressing this need. The first involves explanation generation: inferring high-quality explanations from text documents in a scalable and data-driven manner. The second challenge consists in making explanations actionable, and we refer to it as critiquing. This dissertation examines two important applications in natural language processing and recommendation tasks. Overall, we demonstrate that interpretability does not come at the cost of reduced performance in two consequential applications. Our framework is applicable to other fields as well. This dissertation presents an effective means of closing the gap between promise and practice in artificial intelligence.

Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.

In their paper Counterfactual Explanations for Land Cover Mapping in a Multi-class Setting, Cassio Dantas, Diego Marcos and Dino Ienco apply counterfactual explanations to remote sensing time series data for land-cover mapping classification. In this interview, Cassio tell us more about explainable AI and counterfactuals, the team's research methodology, and their main findings. Our paper falls into the growing topic of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Despite the performances achieved by recent deep learning approaches, they remain black-box models with limited understanding of their internal behavior. To improve general acceptability and trustworthiness of such models, there is a growing need to improve their interpretability and make their decision-making processes more transparent.

One of the most important aspects of data science is building trust. This is especially true when you're working with machine learning and AI technologies, which are new and unfamiliar to many people. When something goes wrong, what do you tell your customer? What do they think will happen next? With explainable AI, you can provide answers that prove your product's legitimacy.