In this study, we developed machine learning algorithms to automatically score students' written arguments and then applied the cognitive diagnostic modeling (CDM) approach to examine students' cognitive patterns of scientific argumentation. We abstracted three types of skills (i.e., attributes) critical for successful argumentation practice: making claims, using evidence, and providing warrants. We developed 19 constructed response items, with each item requiring multiple cognitive skills. We collected responses from 932 students in Grades 5 to 8 and developed machine learning algorithmic models to automatically score their responses. We then applied CDM to analyze their cognitive patterns.

Machine Learning models are frequently seen as black boxes that are impossible to decipher. Because the learner is trained to respond to "yes" and "no" type questions without explaining how the answer was obtained. An explanation of how an answer was achieved is critical in many applications for assuring confidence and openness. Explainable AI refers to strategies and procedures in the use of artificial intelligence technology (AI) that allow human specialists to understand the solution's findings. This article will focus on explaining the machine learner using OmniXAI.

Dealing with uncertain, contradicting, and ambiguous information is still a central issue in Artificial Intelligence (AI). As a result, many formalisms have been proposed or adapted so as to consider non-monotonicity, with only a limited number of works and researchers performing any sort of comparison among them. A non-monotonic formalism is one that allows the retraction of previous conclusions or claims, from premises, in light of new evidence, offering some desirable flexibility when dealing with uncertainty. This research article focuses on evaluating the inferential capacity of defeasible argumentation, a formalism particularly envisioned for modelling non-monotonic reasoning. In addition to this, fuzzy reasoning and expert systems, extended for handling non-monotonicity of reasoning, are selected and employed as baselines, due to their vast and accepted use within the AI community. Computational trust was selected as the domain of application of such models. Trust is an ill-defined construct, hence, reasoning applied to the inference of trust can be seen as non-monotonic. Inference models were designed to assign trust scalars to editors of the Wikipedia project. In particular, argument-based models demonstrated more robustness than those built upon the baselines despite the knowledge bases or datasets employed. This study contributes to the body of knowledge through the exploitation of defeasible argumentation and its comparison to similar approaches. The practical use of such approaches coupled with a modular design that facilitates similar experiments was exemplified and their respective implementations made publicly available on GitHub [120, 121]. This work adds to previous works, empirically enhancing the generalisability of defeasible argumentation as a compelling approach to reason with quantitative data and uncertain knowledge.

Abstract argumentation is a prominent reasoning framework. It comes with a variety of semantics and has lately been enhanced by probabilities to enable a quantitative treatment of argumentation. While admissibility is a fundamental notion for classical reasoning in abstract argumentation frameworks, it has barely been reflected so far in the probabilistic setting. In this paper, we address the quantitative treatment of abstract argumentation based on probabilistic notions of admissibility. Our approach follows the natural idea of defining probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation by systematically imposing constraints on the joint probability distribution on the sets of arguments, rather than on probabilities of single arguments. As a result, there might be either a uniquely defined distribution satisfying the constraints, but also none, many, or even an infinite number of satisfying distributions are possible. We provide probabilistic semantics corresponding to the classical complete and stable semantics and show how labeling schemes provide a bridge from distributions back to argument labelings. In relation to existing work on probabilistic argumentation, we present a taxonomy of semantic notions. Enabled by the constraint-based approach, standard reasoning problems for probabilistic semantics can be tackled by SMT solvers, as we demonstrate by a proof-of-concept implementation.

OmniXAI (short for Omni eXplainable AI) is a Python machine-learning library for explainable AI (XAI), offering omni-way explainable AI and interpretable machine learning capabilities to address many pain points in explaining decisions made by machine learning models in practice. OmniXAI 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 explaination methods including "model-specific" and "model-agnostic" methods (such as feature-attribution explanation, counterfactual explanation, gradient-based explanation, etc). For practitioners, OmniXAI 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 for obtaining more insights about decisions. The following table shows the supported explanation methods and features in our library. We will continue improving this library to make it more comprehensive in the future, e.g., supporting more explanation methods for vision, NLP and time-series tasks.

Fox News correspondent David Spunt has the latest on Congress' response to the failed assassination attempt of Justice Brett Kavanaugh on'Special Report.' Washington Post deputy editorial editor Ruth Marcus wants to make sure people are aware "deranged individuals do deranged things" on "both ends of the political spectrum" before assigning blame for the man who was arrested near the Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. On Wednesday, an armed California man identified as Nicholas John Roske was carrying a gun, knife and pepper spray when arrested outside Kavanaugh's home. He told officers that he wanted "to give his life purpose" and purchased the gun and other items for the purpose of breaking into Kavanaugh's home and killing the justice and then himself. A piece published Thursday night by Marcus headlined, "The Kavanaugh threat exposed weaknesses in judicial security -- and our discourse," admitted the incident "could have ended in unfathomable tragedy" but urged readers not to assign blame or dismiss people who created the environment that "fueled" the assassination attempt.

Black-box nature of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models do not allow users to comprehend and sometimes trust the output created by such model. In AI applications, where not only the results but also the decision paths to the results are critical, such black-box AI models are not sufficient. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) addresses this problem and defines a set of AI models that are interpretable by the users. Recently, several number of XAI models have been to address the issues surrounding by lack of interpretability and explainability of black-box models in various application areas such as healthcare, military, energy, financial and industrial domains. Although the concept of XAI has gained great deal of attention recently, its integration into the IoT domain has not yet been fully defined. In this paper, we provide an in-depth and systematic review of recent studies using XAI models in the scope of IoT domain. We categorize the studies according to their methodology and applications areas. In addition, we aim to focus on the challenging problems and open issues and give future directions to guide the developers and researchers for prospective future investigations.

Machine Learning (ML) systems are a building part of the modern tools which impact our daily life in several application domains. Due to their black-box nature, those systems are hardly adopted in application domains (e.g. health, finance) where understanding the decision process is of paramount importance. Explanation methods were developed to explain how the ML model has taken a specific decision for a given case/instance. Graph Counterfactual Explanations (GCE) is one of the explanation techniques adopted in the Graph Learning domain. The existing works of Graph Counterfactual Explanations diverge mostly in the problem definition, application domain, test data, and evaluation metrics, and most existing works do not compare exhaustively against other counterfactual explanation techniques present in the literature. We present GRETEL, a unified framework to develop and test GCE methods in several settings. GRETEL is a highly extensible evaluation framework which promotes the Open Science and the evaluations reproducibility by providing a set of well-defined mechanisms to integrate and manage easily: both real and synthetic datasets, ML models, state-of-the-art explanation techniques, and evaluation measures. To present GRETEL, we show the experiments conducted to integrate and test several synthetic and real datasets with several existing explanation techniques and base ML models.

With the recent proliferation of artificial intelligence systems, there has been a surge in the demand for explainability of these systems. Explanations help to reduce system opacity, support transparency, and increase stakeholder trust. In this position paper, we discuss synergies between requirements engineering (RE) and Explainable AI (XAI). We highlight challenges in the field of XAI, and propose a framework and research directions on how RE practices can help to mitigate these challenges.

The "black-box" conundrum is one of the biggest roadblocks preventing banks from executing their artificial intelligence (AI) strategies. It's easy to see why: Picture a large bank known for its technology prowess designing a new neural network model that predicts creditworthiness among the underserved community more accurately than any other algorithm in the marketplace. This model processes dozens of variables as inputs, including never-before-used alternative data. The developers are thrilled, senior management is happy that they can expand their services to the underserved market, and business executives believe they now have a competitive differentiator. But there is one pesky problem: The developers who built the model cannot explain how it arrives at the credit outcomes, let alone identify which factors had the biggest influence on them.