The Internet is the most complex machine humankind has ever built, and how to defense it from intrusions is even more complex. With the ever increasing of new intrusions, intrusion detection task rely on Artificial Intelligence more and more. Interpretability and transparency of the machine learning model is the foundation of trust in AI-driven intrusion detection results. Current interpretation Artificial Intelligence technologies in intrusion detection are heuristic, which is neither accurate nor sufficient. This paper proposed a rigorous interpretable Artificial Intelligence driven intrusion detection approach, based on artificial immune system. Details of rigorous interpretation calculation process for a decision tree model is presented. Prime implicant explanation for benign traffic flow are given in detail as rule for negative selection of the cyber immune system. Experiments are carried out in real-life traffic.

In this paper titled A Model-Agnostic SAT-based approach for Symbolic Explanation Enumeration we propose a generic agnostic approach allowing to generate different and complementary types of symbolic explanations. More precisely, we generate explanations to locally explain a single prediction by analyzing the relationship between the features and the output. Our approach uses a propositional encoding of the predictive model and a SAT-based setting to generate two types of symbolic explanations which are Sufficient Reasons and Counterfactuals. The experimental results on image classification task show the feasibility of the proposed approach and its effectiveness in providing Sufficient Reasons and Counterfactuals explanations.

State-of-the-art entity matching (EM) methods are hard to interpret, and there is significant value in bringing explainable AI to EM. Unfortunately, most popular explainability methods do not work well out of the box for EM and need adaptation. In this paper, we identify three challenges of applying local post hoc feature attribution methods to entity matching: cross-record interaction effects, non-match explanations, and variation in sensitivity. We propose our novel model-agnostic and schema-flexible method LEMON that addresses all three challenges by (i) producing dual explanations to avoid cross-record interaction effects, (ii) introducing the novel concept of attribution potential to explain how two records could have matched, and (iii) automatically choosing explanation granularity to match the sensitivity of the matcher and record pair in question. Experiments on public datasets demonstrate that the proposed method is more faithful to the matcher and does a better job of helping users understand the decision boundary of the matcher than previous work. Furthermore, user studies show that the rate at which human subjects can construct counterfactual examples after seeing an explanation from our proposed method increases from 54% to 64% for matches and from 15% to 49% for non-matches compared to explanations from a standard adaptation of LIME.

Our daily lives are being impacted by artificial intelligence (AI) in several ways. Artificial assistants, predictive models, and facial recognition systems are practically ubiquitous. Numerous sectors use AI, including education, healthcare, automobiles, manufacturing, and law enforcement. The judgments and forecasts provided by AI-enabled systems are becoming increasingly more significant and, in many instances, vital to survival. This is particularly true for AI systems used in healthcare, autonomous vehicles, and even military drones.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) seeks to produce explanations for those machine learning methods which are deemed opaque. However, there is considerable disagreement about what this means and how to achieve it. Authors disagree on what should be explained (topic), to whom something should be explained (stakeholder), how something should be explained (instrument), and why something should be explained (goal). In this paper, I employ insights from means-end epistemology to structure the field. According to means-end epistemology, different means ought to be rationally adopted to achieve different epistemic ends. Applied to XAI, different topics, stakeholders, and goals thus require different instruments. I call this the means-end account of XAI. The means-end account has a descriptive and a normative component: on the one hand, I show how the specific means-end relations give rise to a taxonomy of existing contributions to the field of XAI; on the other hand, I argue that the suitability of XAI methods can be assessed by analyzing whether they are prescribed by a given topic, stakeholder, and goal.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are widely adopted in advanced AI systems due to their capability of representation learning on graph data. Even though GNN explanation is crucial to increase user trust in the systems, it is challenging due to the complexity of GNN execution. Lately, many works have been proposed to address some of the issues in GNN explanation. However, they lack generalization capability or suffer from computational burden when the size of graphs is enormous. To address these challenges, we propose a multi-level GNN explanation framework based on an observation that GNN is a multimodal learning process of multiple components in graph data. The complexity of the original problem is relaxed by breaking into multiple sub-parts represented as a hierarchical structure. The top-level explanation aims at specifying the contribution of each component to the model execution and predictions, while fine-grained levels focus on feature attribution and graph structure attribution analysis based on knowledge distillation. Student models are trained in standalone modes and are responsible for capturing different teacher behaviors, later used for particular component interpretation. Besides, we also aim for personalized explanations as the framework can generate different results based on user preferences. Finally, extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness and fidelity of our proposed approach.

This article was published as a part of the Data Science Blogathon. In the modern day, where there is a colossal amount of data at our disposal, using ML models to make decisions has become crucial in sectors like healthcare, finance, marketing, etc. Many ML models are black boxes since it is difficult to fully understand how they function after training. This makes it difficult to understand and explain a model's behaviour, but it is important to do so to have trust in its accuracy. So how can we build trust in the predictions of a black box?

We present an enrichment of the Hateval corpus of hate speech tweets (Basile et. al 2019) aimed to facilitate automated counter-narrative generation. Comparably to previous work (Chung et. al. 2019), manually written counter-narratives are associated to tweets. However, this information alone seems insufficient to obtain satisfactory language models for counter-narrative generation. That is why we have also annotated tweets with argumentative information based on Wagemanns (2016), that we believe can help in building convincing and effective counter-narratives for hate speech against particular groups. We discuss adequacies and difficulties of this annotation process and present several baselines for automatic detection of the annotated elements. Preliminary results show that automatic annotators perform close to human annotators to detect some aspects of argumentation, while others only reach low or moderate level of inter-annotator agreement.

Recent work shows issues of consistency with explanations, with methods generating local explanations that seem reasonable instance-wise, but that are inconsistent across instances. This suggests not only that instance-wise explanations can be unreliable, but mainly that, when interacting with a system via multiple inputs, a user may actually lose confidence in the system. To better analyse this issue, in this work we treat explanations as objects that can be subject to reasoning and present a formal model of the interactive scenario between user and system, via sequences of inputs, outputs, and explanations. We argue that explanations can be thought of as committing to some model behaviour (even if only prima facie), suggesting a form of entailment, which, we argue, should be thought of as non-monotonic. This allows: 1) to solve some considered inconsistencies in explanation, such as via a specificity relation; 2) to consider properties from the non-monotonic reasoning literature and discuss their desirability, gaining more insight on the interactive explanation scenario.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder of glucose management, whose prevalence is increasing inexorably worldwide. Adherence to therapies, along with a healthy lifestyle can help prevent the onset of disease. This preliminary study proposes the use of explainable artificial intelligence techniques with the aim of (i) characterizing diabetic patients through a set of easily interpretable rules and (ii) providing individualized recommendations for the prevention of the onset of the disease through the generation of counterfactual explanations, based on minimal variations of biomarkers routinely collected in primary care. The results of this preliminary study parallel findings from the literature as differences in biomarkers between patients with and without diabetes are observed for fasting blood sugar, body mass index, and high-density lipoprotein levels.