The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) requires developers and designers of AI systems to focus on the collaboration between humans and machines. AI explanations of system behavior and reasoning are vital for effective collaboration by fostering appropriate trust, ensuring understanding, and addressing issues of fairness and bias. However, various contextual and subjective factors can influence an AI system explanation's effectiveness. This work draws inspiration from findings in cognitive psychology to understand how effective explanations can be designed. We identify four components to which explanation designers can pay special attention: perception, semantics, intent, and user & context. We illustrate the use of these four explanation components with an example of estimating food calories by combining text with visuals, probabilities with exemplars, and intent communication with both user and context in mind. We propose that the significant challenge for effective AI explanations is an additional step between explanation generation using algorithms not producing interpretable explanations and explanation communication. We believe this extra step will benefit from carefully considering the four explanation components outlined in our work, which can positively affect the explanation's effectiveness.

In recent years, Explainable AI (xAI) attracted a lot of attention as various countries turned explanations into a legal right. xAI allows for improving models beyond the accuracy metric by, e.g., debugging the learned pattern and demystifying the AI's behavior. The widespread use of xAI brought new challenges. On the one hand, the number of published xAI algorithms underwent a boom, and it became difficult for practitioners to select the right tool. On the other hand, some experiments did highlight how easy data scientists could misuse xAI algorithms and misinterpret their results. To tackle the issue of comparing and correctly using feature importance xAI algorithms, we propose Compare-xAI, a benchmark that unifies all exclusive functional testing methods applied to xAI algorithms. We propose a selection protocol to shortlist non-redundant functional tests from the literature, i.e., each targeting a specific end-user requirement in explaining a model. The benchmark encapsulates the complexity of evaluating xAI methods into a hierarchical scoring of three levels, namely, targeting three end-user groups: researchers, practitioners, and laymen in xAI. The most detailed level provides one score per test. The second level regroups tests into five categories (fidelity, fragility, stability, simplicity, and stress tests). The last level is the aggregated comprehensibility score, which encapsulates the ease of correctly interpreting the algorithm's output in one easy to compare value. Compare-xAI's interactive user interface helps mitigate errors in interpreting xAI results by quickly listing the recommended xAI solutions for each ML task and their current limitations. The benchmark is made available at https://karim-53.github.io/cxai/

Reasoning with legal cases, especially as conducted in common law jurisdictions such as the UK and USA, is a form of argumentation much studied in Artificial Intelligence and in computational argumentation. The formal procedure within which it is conducted and the extensive documentation which records the argument presented for each side and an assessment of these arguments make it a fruitful area for study. As described in [35], there may be several types of reasoning involved, including the use of rules, the balancing of factors, analogy and the use of policies to achieve particular purposes. All of these have been modelled in AI and Law, and this work suggests that reasoning with legal cases can been seen as going through a series of stages at which different reasoning styles are appropriate. This view will be elaborated in Section 2. One way of modelling a reasoning task [24] is to present it as a set of argumentation schemes [38]. In this paper we will use this method to articulate the reasoning required at each of the stages. Although legal reasoning is worthy of study in itself, we believe that the insights are also applicable to other, less formal, domains where it is necessary to balance reasons for and against particular options to come to a decision.

Businesses increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) systems to make decisions that can significantly affect individual rights, human safety, and critical business operations. But how do these models derive their conclusions? What data do they use? And can we trust the results? Addressing these questions is the essence of "explainability," and getting it right is becoming essential.

Recent machine learning approaches have been effective in Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications. They produce robust results with a high level of accuracy. However, most of these techniques do not provide human-understandable explanations for supporting their results and decisions. They usually act as black boxes, and it is not easy to understand how decisions have been made. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which has received much interest recently, tries to provide human-understandable explanations for decision-making and trained AI models. For instance, in digital agriculture, related domains often present peculiar or input features with no link to background knowledge. The application of the data mining process on agricultural data leads to results (knowledge), which are difficult to explain. In this paper, we propose a knowledge map model and an ontology design as an XAI framework (OAK4XAI) to deal with this issue. The framework does not only consider the data analysis part of the process, but it takes into account the semantics aspect of the domain knowledge via an ontology and a knowledge map model, provided as modules of the framework. Many ongoing XAI studies aim to provide accurate and verbalizable accounts for how given feature values contribute to model decisions. The proposed approach, however, focuses on providing consistent information and definitions of concepts, algorithms, and values involved in the data mining models. We built an Agriculture Computing Ontology (AgriComO) to explain the knowledge mined in agriculture. AgriComO has a well-designed structure and includes a wide range of concepts and transformations suitable for agriculture and computing domains.

By Vincent Granville Ph.D, published in September 2022. The book is available here. For my upcoming course based on this book, see here. This book covers the foundations of machine learning, with modern approaches to solving complex problems. Emphasis is on scalability, automation, testing, optimizing, and interpretability (explainable AI).

Concept induction, which is based on formal logical reasoning over description logics, has been used in ontology engineering in order to create ontology (TBox) axioms from the base data (ABox) graph. In this paper, we show that it can also be used to explain data differentials, for example in the context of Explainable AI (XAI), and we show that it can in fact be done in a way that is meaningful to a human observer.

This paper establishes a dual theory about knowledge and argumentation. Our idea is rooted at both epistemic logic and argumentation theory, and we aim to merge these two fields, not just in a superficial way but to thoroughly disclose the intrinsic relevance between knowledge and argumentation. Specifically, we define epistemic Kripke models and argument Kripke models as a dual pair, and then work out a two-way generation method between these two types of Kripke models. Such generation is rigorously justified by a duality theorem on modal formulae's invariance. We also provide realistic examples to demonstrate our generation, through which our framework's practical utility gets strongly advocated. We finally propose a philosophical thesis that knowledge is essentially dynamic, and we draw certain connection to Maxwell's demon as well as the well-known proverb "knowledge is power".

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are a powerful means for understanding how decisions made by algorithms can be changed. Researchers have proposed a number of desiderata that CEs should meet to be practically useful, such as requiring minimal effort to enact, or complying with causal models. We consider a further aspect to improve the usability of CEs: robustness to adverse perturbations, which may naturally happen due to unfortunate circumstances. Since CEs typically prescribe a sparse form of intervention (i.e., only a subset of the features should be changed), we study the effect of addressing robustness separately for the features that are recommended to be changed and those that are not. Our definitions are workable in that they can be incorporated as penalty terms in the loss functions that are used for discovering CEs. To experiment with robustness, we create and release code where five data sets (commonly used in the field of fair and explainable machine learning) have been enriched with feature-specific annotations that can be used to sample meaningful perturbations. Our experiments show that CEs are often not robust and, if adverse perturbations take place (even if not worst-case), the intervention they prescribe may require a much larger cost than anticipated, or even become impossible. However, accounting for robustness in the search process, which can be done rather easily, allows discovering robust CEs systematically. Robust CEs make additional intervention to contrast perturbations much less costly than non-robust CEs. We also find that robustness is easier to achieve for the features to change, posing an important point of consideration for the choice of what counterfactual explanation is best for the user. Our code is available at: https://github.com/marcovirgolin/robust-counterfactuals.

In the wake of the "Great Reshuffle," companies continue to reevaluate their approach to recruitment and retention. In order to drive efficiency and remain effective at scale, business leaders are increasingly turning to new technologies for support. One of the most valuable technologies supporting talent management strategies today is artificial intelligence (AI). It has the potential to revolutionize the way in which businesses interact with the wider talent landscape, helping HR teams and recruiters fill much-needed positions and identify the skill sets in most demand. A critical, but often overlooked, element for talent stakeholders to take into account is ensuring all candidates--internal or external--are given fair and equal consideration to the open opportunities.