Currently, there are no convincing proxies for the fundamentals of cryptocurrency assets. We propose a new market-to-fundamental ratio, the price-to-utility (PU) ratio, utilizing unique blockchain accounting methods. We then proxy various fundamental-to-market ratios by Bitcoin historical data and find they have little predictive power for short-term bitcoin returns. However, PU ratio effectively predicts long-term bitcoin returns. We verify PU ratio valuation by unsupervised and supervised machine learning. The valuation method informs investment returns and predicts bull markets effectively. Finally, we present an automated trading strategy advised by the PU ratio that outperforms the conventional buy-and-hold and market-timing strategies. We distribute the trading algorithms as open-source software via Python Package Index for future research.

Urban vegetation mapping is critical in many applications, i.e., preserving biodiversity, maintaining ecological balance, and minimizing the urban heat island effect. It is still challenging to extract accurate vegetation covers from aerial imagery using traditional classification approaches, because urban vegetation categories have complex spatial structures and similar spectral properties. Deep neural networks (DNNs) have shown a significant improvement in remote sensing image classification outcomes during the last few years. These methods are promising in this domain, yet unreliable for various reasons, such as the use of irrelevant descriptor features in the building of the models and lack of quality in the labeled image. Explainable AI (XAI) can help us gain insight into these limits and, as a result, adjust the training dataset and model as needed. Thus, in this work, we explain how an explanation model called Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) can be utilized for interpreting the output of the DNN model that is designed for classifying vegetation covers. We want to not only produce high-quality vegetation maps, but also rank the input parameters and select appropriate features for classification. Therefore, we test our method on vegetation mapping from aerial imagery based on spectral and textural features. Texture features can help overcome the limitations of poor spectral resolution in aerial imagery for vegetation mapping. The model was capable of obtaining an overall accuracy (OA) of 94.44% for vegetation cover mapping. The conclusions derived from SHAP plots demonstrate the high contribution of features, such as Hue, Brightness, GLCM_Dissimilarity, GLCM_Homogeneity, and GLCM_Mean to the output of the proposed model for vegetation mapping. Therefore, the study indicates that existing vegetation mapping strategies based only on spectral characteristics are insufficient to appropriately classify vegetation covers.

Not only automation of manufacturing processes but also automation of automation procedures itself become increasingly relevant to automation research. In this context, automated capability assessment, mainly leveraged by deep learning systems driven from 3D CAD data, have been presented. Current assessment systems may be able to assess CAD data with regards to abstract features, e.g. the ability to automatically separate components from bulk goods, or the presence of gripping surfaces. Nevertheless, they suffer from the factor of black box systems, where an assessment can be learned and generated easily, but without any geometrical indicator about the reasons of the system's decision. By utilizing explainable AI (xAI) methods, we attempt to open up the black box. Explainable AI methods have been used in order to assess whether a neural network has successfully learned a given task or to analyze which features of an input might lead to an adversarial attack. These methods aim to derive additional insights into a neural network, by analyzing patterns from a given input and its impact to the network output. Within the NeuroCAD Project, xAI methods are used to identify geometrical features which are associated with a certain abstract feature. Within this work, a sensitivity analysis (SA), the layer-wise relevance propagation (LRP), the Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) method as well as the Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) have been implemented in the NeuroCAD environment, allowing not only to assess CAD models but also to identify features which have been relevant for the network decision. In the medium run, this might enable to identify regions of interest supporting product designers to optimize their models with regards to assembly processes.

While a lot of research in explainable AI focuses on producing effective explanations, less work is devoted to the question of how people understand and interpret the explanation. In this work, we focus on this question through a study of saliency-based explanations over textual data. Feature-attribution explanations of text models aim to communicate which parts of the input text were more influential than others towards the model decision. Many current explanation methods, such as gradient-based or Shapley value-based methods, provide measures of importance which are well-understood mathematically. But how does a person receiving the explanation (the explainee) comprehend it? And does their understanding match what the explanation attempted to communicate? We empirically investigate the effect of various factors of the input, the feature-attribution explanation, and visualization procedure, on laypeople's interpretation of the explanation. We query crowdworkers for their interpretation on tasks in English and German, and fit a GAMM model to their responses considering the factors of interest. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations: superficial and unrelated factors, such as word length, influence the explainees' importance assignment despite the explanation communicating importance directly. We then show that some of this distortion can be attenuated: we propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception, and explore bar charts as an alternative to heatmap saliency visualization. We find that both approaches can attenuate the distorting effect of specific factors, leading to better-calibrated understanding of the explanation.

When explaining AI behavior to humans, how is the communicated information being comprehended by the human explainee, and does it match what the explanation attempted to communicate? When can we say that an explanation is explaining something? We aim to provide an answer by leveraging theory of mind literature about the folk concepts that humans use to understand behavior. We establish a framework of social attribution by the human explainee, which describes the function of explanations: the concrete information that humans comprehend from them. Specifically, effective explanations should be coherent (communicate information which generalizes to other contrast cases), complete (communicating an explicit contrast case, objective causes, and subjective causes), and interactive (surfacing and resolving contradictions to the generalization property through iterations). We demonstrate that many XAI mechanisms can be mapped to folk concepts of behavior. This allows us to uncover their modes of failure that prevent current methods from explaining effectively, and what is necessary to enable coherent explanations.

It is widely acknowledged that transparency of automated decision making is crucial for deployability of intelligent systems, and explaining the reasons why some decisions are "good" and some are not is a way to achieving this transparency. We consider two variants of decision making, where "good" decisions amount to alternatives (i) meeting "most" goals, and (ii) meeting "most preferred" goals. We then define, for each variant and notion of "goodness" (corresponding to a number of existing notions in the literature), explanations in two formats, for justifying the selection of an alternative to audiences with differing needs and competences: lean explanations, in terms of goals satisfied and, for some notions of "goodness", alternative decisions, and argumentative explanations, reflecting the decision process leading to the selection, while corresponding to the lean explanations. To define argumentative explanations, we use assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a well-known form of structured argumentation. Specifically, we define ABA frameworks such that "good" decisions are admissible ABA arguments and draw argumentative explanations from dispute trees sanctioning this admissibility. Finally, we instantiate our overall framework for explainable decision-making to accommodate connections between goals and decisions in terms of decision graphs incorporating defeasible and non-defeasible information.

The rising popularity of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to understand high-performing black boxes, also raised the question of how to evaluate explanations of machine learning (ML) models. While interpretability and explainability are often presented as a subjectively validated binary property, we consider it a multi-faceted concept. We identify 12 conceptual properties, such as Compactness and Correctness, that should be evaluated for comprehensively assessing the quality of an explanation. Our so-called Co-12 properties serve as categorization scheme for systematically reviewing the evaluation practice of more than 300 papers published in the last 7 years at major AI and ML conferences that introduce an XAI method. We find that 1 in 3 papers evaluate exclusively with anecdotal evidence, and 1 in 5 papers evaluate with users. We also contribute to the call for objective, quantifiable evaluation methods by presenting an extensive overview of quantitative XAI evaluation methods. This systematic collection of evaluation methods provides researchers and practitioners with concrete tools to thoroughly validate, benchmark and compare new and existing XAI methods. This also opens up opportunities to include quantitative metrics as optimization criteria during model training in order to optimize for accuracy and interpretability simultaneously.

Intelligent decision support (IDS) systems leverage artificial intelligence techniques to generate recommendations that guide human users through the decision making phases of a task. However, a key challenge is that IDS systems are not perfect, and in complex real-world scenarios may produce incorrect output or fail to work altogether. The field of explainable AI planning (XAIP) has sought to develop techniques that make the decision making of sequential decision making AI systems more explainable to end-users. Critically, prior work in applying XAIP techniques to IDS systems has assumed that the plan being proposed by the planner is always optimal, and therefore the action or plan being recommended as decision support to the user is always correct. In this work, we examine novice user interactions with a non-robust IDS system -- one that occasionally recommends the wrong action, and one that may become unavailable after users have become accustomed to its guidance. We introduce a novel explanation type, subgoal-based explanations, for planning-based IDS systems, that supplements traditional IDS output with information about the subgoal toward which the recommended action would contribute. We demonstrate that subgoal-based explanations lead to improved user task performance, improve user ability to distinguish optimal and suboptimal IDS recommendations, are preferred by users, and enable more robust user performance in the case of IDS failure

Dramatic success in machine learning has created an explosion of new AI capabilities. Continued advances promise to produce autonomous systems that perceive, learn, decide, and act on their own. These systems offer tremendous benefits, but their effectiveness will be limited by the machine's inability to explain its decisions and actions to human users. This issue is especially important for the United States Department of Defense (DoD), which faces challenges that require the development of more intelligent, autonomous, and reliable systems. XAI will be essential for users to understand, appropriately trust, and effectively manage this emerging generation of artificially intelligent partners.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to fascinate and rule the world of data science. It has been the one technology that had impacted the maximum number of domains in the last 10 years – and apparently, will continue doing so throughout the current decade. Coupled with Machine Learning (ML), AI-based algorithms have proved to be a game changer in data-based decision-making and predictive models. However, for business value and critical operations, AI algorithms cannot function as an inscrutable black box or operate entirely autonomously without any kind of check point. It is now expected that organizations developing and/or implementing complex AI systems need to factor in explainability into their models to eliminate future complications.