Argumentation mining aims to automatically identify structured argument data from unstructured natural language text. This challenging, multi-faceted task is recently gaining a growing attention, especially due to its many potential applications. One particularly important aspect of argumentation mining is claim identification. Most of the current approaches are engineered to address specific domains. However, argumentative sentences are often characterized by common rhetorical structures, independently of the domain. We thus propose a method that exploits structured parsing information to detect claims without resorting to contextual information, and yet achieve a performance comparable to that of state-of-the-art methods that heavily rely on the context.

Model reconciliation has been proposed as a way for an agent to explain its decisions to a human who may have a different understanding of the same planning problem by explaining its decisions in terms of these model differences.However, often the human's mental model (and hence the difference) is not known precisely and such explanations cannot be readily computed.In this paper, we show how the explanation generation process evolves in the presence of such model uncertainty or incompleteness by generating {\em conformant explanations} that are applicable to a set of possible models.We also show how such explanations can contain superfluous informationand how such redundancies can be reduced using conditional explanations to iterate with the human to attain common ground. Finally, we will introduce an anytime version of this approach and empirically demonstrate the trade-offs involved in the different forms of explanations in terms of the computational overhead for the agent and the communication overhead for the human.We illustrate these concepts in three well-known planning domains as well as in a demonstration on a robot involved in a typical search and reconnaissance scenario with an external human supervisor.

Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modelling nonmonotonic reasoning with conflicting information. In this paper we provide a proof-theoretic study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality postulates, we consider the conditions that an argumentation framework should fulfill for the desiderata to hold. The rationality behind this approach is to assist designers to plug-in'' pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs. This work extends related research on the subject in several ways: more postulates are characterized, a more abstract notion of arguments is considered, and it is shown how the nature of the attack rules (subset attacks versus direct attacks) affects the properties of the whole setting.

This paper discusses how AI models of argumentation can play a role in personalized and participatory medicine. It describes our previous research on natural language generation of argumentation for genetic counseling and a pilot study on risk visualization, and our current research on argumentation mining.

In this paper, we demonstrate how a planner (or a robot as an embodiment of it) can explain its decisions to multiple agents in the loop together considering not only the model that it used to come up with its decisions but also the (often misaligned) models of the same task that the other agents might have had. To do this, we build on our previous work on multi-model explanation generation and extend it to account for settings where there is uncertainty of the robot's model of the explainee and/or there are multiple explainees with different models to explain to. We will illustrate these concepts in a demonstration on a robot involved in a typical search and reconnaissance scenario with another human teammate and an external human supervisor.

The use of symbolic knowledge representation and reasoning as a way to resolve the lack of transparency of machine learning classifiers is a research area that lately attracts many researchers. In this work, we use knowledge graphs as the underlying framework providing the terminology for representing explanations for the operation of a machine learning classifier. In particular, given a description of the application domain of the classifier in the form of a knowledge graph, we introduce a novel method for extracting and representing black-box explanations of its operation, in the form of first-order logic rules expressed in the terminology of the knowledge graph.

Statistical production systems cover multiple steps from the collection, aggregation, and integration of data to tasks like data quality assurance and dissemination. While the context of data quality assurance is one of the most promising fields for applying machine learning, the lack of curated and labeled training data is often a limiting factor. The statistical production system for the Centralised Securities Database features an interactive feedback loop between data collected by the European Central Bank and data quality assurance performed by data quality managers at National Central Banks. The quality assurance feedback loop is based on a set of rule-based checks for raising exceptions, upon which the user either confirms the data or corrects an actual error. In this paper we use the information received from this feedback loop to optimize the exceptions presented to the National Central Banks thereby improving the quality of exceptions generated and the time consumed on the system by the users authenticating those exceptions. For this approach we make use of explainable supervised machine learning to (a) identify the types of exceptions and (b) to prioritize which exceptions are more likely to require an intervention or correction by the NCBs. Furthermore, we provide an explainable AI taxonomy aiming to identify the different explainable AI needs that arose during the project.

Learning arguments is highly relevant to the field of explainable artificial intelligence. It is a family of symbolic machine learning techniques that is particularly human-interpretable. These techniques learn a set of arguments as an intermediate representation. Arguments are small rules with exceptions that can be chained to larger arguments for making predictions or decisions. We investigate the learning of arguments, specifically the learning of arguments from a 'case model' proposed by Verheij [34]. The case model in Verheij's approach are cases or scenarios in a legal setting. The number of cases in a case model are relatively low. Here, we investigate whether Verheij's approach can be used for learning arguments from other types of data sets with a much larger number of instances. We compare the learning of arguments from a case model with the HeRO algorithm [15] and learning a decision tree.

Gradual semantics with abstract argumentation provide each argument with a score reflecting its acceptability, i.e. how "much" it is attacked by other arguments. Many different gradual semantics have been proposed in the literature, each following different principles and producing different argument rankings. A sub-class of such semantics, the so-called weighted semantics, takes, in addition to the graph structure, an initial set of weights over the arguments as input, with these weights affecting the resultant argument ranking. In this work, we consider the inverse problem over such weighted semantics. That is, given an argumentation framework and a desired argument ranking, we ask whether there exist initial weights such that a particular semantics produces the given ranking. The contribution of this paper are: (1) an algorithm to answer this problem, (2) a characterisation of the properties that a gradual semantics must satisfy for the algorithm to operate, and (3) an empirical evaluation of the proposed algorithm.

Machine learning is an integral part of many human-facing computer systems and is increasingly a key component of decisions that have profound effects on people's lives. There are many dangers that come with this. For instance, statistical models can easily be error-prone in regions of the input space that are not well-reflected in training data but that end up arising in practice. Or they can be excessively complicated in ways that impact their generalization ability. Or they might implicitly make their decisions based on criteria that would not considered acceptable by society. For all these reasons, and many others, it is crucial to have models that are understandable or can explain their predictions to humans [19]. Explanations of a classification system can take many forms, but should accurately reflect the classifier's inner workings.