This volume contains revised versions of the papers selected for the third volume of the Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI (OHAAI). Previously, formal theories of argument and argument interaction have been proposed and studied, and this has led to the more recent study of computational models of argument. Argumentation, as a field within artificial intelligence (AI), is highly relevant for researchers interested in symbolic representations of knowledge and defeasible reasoning. The purpose of this handbook is to provide an open access and curated anthology for the argumentation research community. OHAAI is designed to serve as a research hub to keep track of the latest and upcoming PhD-driven research on the theory and application of argumentation in all areas related to AI.

In this paper we propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. The approach allows for conditional reasoning over arguments and boolean combination of arguments, with respect to a class of gradual semantics, through the verification of graded (strict or defeasible) implications over a preferential interpretation. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning in a many-valued argumentation semantics of weighted argumentation graphs. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.

To increase the adoption of counterfactual explanations in practice, several criteria that these should adhere to have been put forward in the literature. We propose counterfactual explanations using optimization with constraint learning (CE-OCL), a generic and flexible approach that addresses all these criteria and allows room for further extensions. Specifically, we discuss how we can leverage an optimization with constraint learning framework for the generation of counterfactual explanations, and how components of this framework readily map to the criteria. We also propose two novel modeling approaches to address data manifold closeness and diversity, which are two key criteria for practical counterfactual explanations. We test CE-OCL on several datasets and present our results in a case study. Compared against the current state-of-the-art methods, CE-OCL allows for more flexibility and has an overall superior performance in terms of several evaluation metrics proposed in related work.

We introduce OmniXAI (short for Omni eXplainable AI), an open-source Python library of eXplainable AI (XAI), which offers omni-way explainable AI capabilities and various interpretable machine learning techniques to address the pain points of understanding and interpreting the decisions made by machine learning (ML) in practice. OmniXAI aims to be a one-stop comprehensive library that makes explainable AI easy for data scientists, ML researchers and practitioners who need explanation for various types of data, models and explanation methods at different stages of ML process (data exploration, feature engineering, model development, evaluation, and decision-making, etc). In particular, our library includes a rich family of explanation methods integrated in a unified interface, which supports multiple data types (tabular data, images, texts, time-series), multiple types of ML models (traditional ML in Scikit-learn and deep learning models in PyTorch/TensorFlow), and a range of diverse explanation methods including "model-specific" and "model-agnostic" ones (such as feature-attribution explanation, counterfactual explanation, gradient-based explanation, etc). For practitioners, the library provides an easy-to-use unified interface to generate the explanations for their applications by only writing a few lines of codes, and also a GUI dashboard for visualization of different explanations for more insights about decisions. In this technical report, we present OmniXAI's design principles, system architectures, and major functionalities, and also demonstrate several example use cases across different types of data, tasks, and models.

Counterfactual (CF) explanations have been employed as one of the modes of explainability in explainable AI-both to increase the transparency of AI systems and to provide recourse. Cognitive science and psychology, however, have pointed out that people regularly use CFs to express causal relationships. Most AI systems are only able to capture associations or correlations in data so interpreting them as casual would not be justified. In this paper, we present two experiment (total N = 364) exploring the effects of CF explanations of AI system's predictions on lay people's causal beliefs about the real world. In Experiment 1 we found that providing CF explanations of an AI system's predictions does indeed (unjustifiably) affect people's causal beliefs regarding factors/features the AI uses and that people are more likely to view them as causal factors in the real world. Inspired by the literature on misinformation and health warning messaging, Experiment 2 tested whether we can correct for the unjustified change in causal beliefs. We found that pointing out that AI systems capture correlations and not necessarily causal relationships can attenuate the effects of CF explanations on people's causal beliefs.

The use of deep learning in computer vision tasks such as image classification has led to a rapid increase in the performance of such systems. Due to this substantial increment in the utility of these systems, the use of artificial intelligence in many critical tasks has exploded. In the medical domain, medical image classification systems are being adopted due to their high accuracy and near parity with human physicians in many tasks. However, these artificial intelligence systems are extremely complex and are considered black boxes by scientists, due to the difficulty in interpreting what exactly led to the predictions made by these models. When these systems are being used to assist high-stakes decision-making, it is extremely important to be able to understand, verify and justify the conclusions reached by the model. The research techniques being used to gain insight into the black-box models are in the field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). In this paper, we evaluated three different XAI methods across two convolutional neural network models trained to classify lung cancer from histopathological images. We visualized the outputs and analyzed the performance of these methods, in order to better understand how to apply explainable artificial intelligence in the medical domain.

Although many machine learning methods, especially from the field of deep learning, have been instrumental in addressing challenges within robotic applications, we cannot take full advantage of such methods before these can provide performance and safety guarantees. The lack of trust that impedes the use of these methods mainly stems from a lack of human understanding of what exactly machine learning models have learned, and how robust their behaviour is. This is the problem the field of explainable artificial intelligence aims to solve. Based on insights from the social sciences, we know that humans prefer contrastive explanations, i.e.\ explanations answering the hypothetical question "what if?". In this paper, we show that linear model trees are capable of producing answers to such questions, so-called counterfactual explanations, for robotic systems, including in the case of multiple, continuous inputs and outputs. We demonstrate the use of this method to produce counterfactual explanations for two robotic applications. Additionally, we explore the issue of infeasibility, which is of particular interest in systems governed by the laws of physics.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is essential for enabling clinical users to get informed decision support from AI and comply with evidence-based medical practice. Applying XAI in clinical settings requires proper evaluation criteria to ensure the explanation technique is both technically sound and clinically useful, but specific support is lacking to achieve this goal. To bridge the research gap, we propose the Clinical XAI Guidelines that consist of five criteria a clinical XAI needs to be optimized for. The guidelines recommend choosing an explanation form based on Guideline 1 (G1) Understandability and G2 Clinical relevance. For the chosen explanation form, its specific XAI technique should be optimized for G3 Truthfulness, G4 Informative plausibility, and G5 Computational efficiency. Following the guidelines, we conducted a systematic evaluation on a novel problem of multi-modal medical image explanation with two clinical tasks, and proposed new evaluation metrics accordingly. Sixteen commonly-used heatmap XAI techniques were evaluated and found to be insufficient for clinical use due to their failure in G3 and G4. Our evaluation demonstrated the use of Clinical XAI Guidelines to support the design and evaluation of clinically viable XAI.

As the societal impact of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) grows, the goals for advancing DNNs become more complex and diverse, ranging from improving a conventional model accuracy metric to infusing advanced human virtues such as fairness, accountability, transparency (FaccT), and unbiasedness. Recently, techniques in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) are attracting considerable attention, and have tremendously helped Machine Learning (ML) engineers in understanding AI models. However, at the same time, we started to witness the emerging need beyond XAI among AI communities; based on the insights learned from XAI, how can we better empower ML engineers in steering their DNNs so that the model's reasonableness and performance can be improved as intended? This article provides a timely and extensive literature overview of the field Explanation-Guided Learning (EGL), a domain of techniques that steer the DNNs' reasoning process by adding regularization, supervision, or intervention on model explanations. In doing so, we first provide a formal definition of EGL and its general learning paradigm. Secondly, an overview of the key factors for EGL evaluation, as well as summarization and categorization of existing evaluation procedures and metrics for EGL are provided. Finally, the current and potential future application areas and directions of EGL are discussed, and an extensive experimental study is presented aiming at providing comprehensive comparative studies among existing EGL models in various popular application domains, such as Computer Vision (CV) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) domains.

Automated Machine Learning-based systems' integration into a wide range of tasks has expanded as a result of their performance and speed. Although there are numerous advantages to employing ML-based systems, if they are not interpretable, they should not be used in critical, high-risk applications where human lives are at risk. To address this issue, researchers and businesses have been focusing on finding ways to improve the interpretability of complex ML systems, and several such methods have been developed. Indeed, there are so many developed techniques that it is difficult for practitioners to choose the best among them for their applications, even when using evaluation metrics. As a result, the demand for a selection tool, a meta-explanation technique based on a high-quality evaluation metric, is apparent. In this paper, we present a local meta-explanation technique which builds on top of the truthfulness metric, which is a faithfulness-based metric. We demonstrate the effectiveness of both the technique and the metric by concretely defining all the concepts and through experimentation.