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.

We are excited to bring Transform 2022 back in-person July 19 and virtually July 20 - 28. Join AI and data leaders for insightful talks and exciting networking opportunities. Artificial intelligence (AI) is highly effective at parsing extreme volumes of data and making decisions based on information that is beyond the limits of human comprehension. But it suffers from one serious flaw: it cannot explain how it arrives at the conclusions it presents, at least, not in a way that most people can understand. This "black box" characteristic is starting to throw some serious kinks in the applications that AI is empowering, particularly in medical, financial and other critical fields, where the "why" of any particular action is often more important than the "what." This is leading to a new field of study called explainable AI (XAI), which seeks to infuse AI algorithms with enough transparency so users outside the realm of data scientists and programmers can double-check their AI's logic to make sure it is operating within the bounds of acceptable reasoning, bias and other factors.

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) highlight what changes to a model's input would have changed its prediction in a particular way. CFEs have gained considerable traction as a psychologically grounded solution for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Recent innovations introduce the notion of computational plausibility for automatically generated CFEs, enhancing their robustness by exclusively creating plausible explanations. However, practical benefits of such a constraint on user experience and behavior is yet unclear. In this study, we evaluate objective and subjective usability of computationally plausible CFEs in an iterative learning design targeting novice users. We rely on a novel, game-like experimental design, revolving around an abstract scenario. Our results show that novice users actually benefit less from receiving computationally plausible rather than closest CFEs that produce minimal changes leading to the desired outcome. Responses in a post-game survey reveal no differences in terms of subjective user experience between both groups. Following the view of psychological plausibility as comparative similarity, this may be explained by the fact that users in the closest condition experience their CFEs as more psychologically plausible than the computationally plausible counterpart. In sum, our work highlights a little-considered divergence of definitions of computational plausibility and psychological plausibility, critically confirming the need to incorporate human behavior, preferences and mental models already at the design stages of XAI approaches. In the interest of reproducible research, all source code, acquired user data, and evaluation scripts of the current study are available: https://github.com/ukuhl/PlausibleAlienZoo

To foster usefulness and accountability of machine learning (ML), it is essential to explain a model's decisions in addition to evaluating its performance. Accordingly, the field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has resurfaced as a topic of active research, offering approaches to address the "how" and "why" of automated decision-making. Within this domain, counterfactual explanations (CFEs) have gained considerable traction as a psychologically grounded approach to generate post-hoc explanations. To do so, CFEs highlight what changes to a model's input would have changed its prediction in a particular way. However, despite the introduction of numerous CFE approaches, their usability has yet to be thoroughly validated at the human level. Thus, to advance the field of XAI, we introduce the Alien Zoo, an engaging, web-based and game-inspired experimental framework. The Alien Zoo provides the means to evaluate usability of CFEs for gaining new knowledge from an automated system, targeting novice users in a domain-general context. As a proof of concept, we demonstrate the practical efficacy and feasibility of this approach in a user study. Our results suggest that users benefit from receiving CFEs compared to no explanation, both in terms of objective performance in the proposed iterative learning task, and subjective usability. With this work, we aim to equip research groups and practitioners with the means to easily run controlled and well-powered user studies to complement their otherwise often more technology-oriented work. Thus, in the interest of reproducible research, we provide the entire code, together with the underlying models and user data.

Less than a year ago, Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI VP of research Dario Amodei, intending to perform research in the public interest on making AI more reliable and explainable. Its $124 million in funding was surprising then, but nothing could have prepared us for the company raising $580 million less than a year later. "With this fundraise, we're going to explore the predictable scaling properties of machine learning systems, while closely examining the unpredictable ways in which capabilities and safety issues can emerge at-scale," said Amodei in the announcement. His sister Daniela, with whom he co-founded the public benefit corporation, said that having built out the company, "We're focusing on ensuring Anthropic has the culture and governance to continue to responsibly explore and develop safe AI systems as we scale." Because that's the problem category Anthropic was formed to examine: how to better understand the AI models increasingly in use in every industry as they grow beyond our ability to explain their logic and outcomes.

Just like a coin, explainability in AI has two faces -- one it shows to the developers (who actually build the models) and the other to the users (the end customers). The former face (IE i.e. intrinsic explainability) is a technical indicator to the builder that explains the working of the model. Whereas the latter (EE i.e. extrinsic explainability) is proof to the customers about the model's predictions. While IE is required for any reasonable model improvement, we need EE for factual confirmation. A simple layman who ends up using the model's prediction needs to know why is the model suggesting something.