Quantified Boolean logic results from adding operators to Boolean logic for existentially and universally quantifying variables. This extends the reach of Boolean logic by enabling a variety of applications that have been explored over the decades. The existential quantification of literals (variable states) and its applications have also been studied in the literature. In this paper, we complement this by introducing and studying universal literal quantification and its applications, particularly to explainable AI. We also provide a novel semantics for quantification, discuss the interplay between variable/literal and existential/universal quantification, and identify some classes of Boolean formulas and circuits on which quantification can be done efficiently. Literal quantification is more fine-grained than variable quantification as the latter can be defined in terms of the former, leading to a refinement of quantified Boolean logic with literal quantification as its primitive.

Misleading or false information has been creating chaos in some places around the world. To mitigate this issue, many researchers have proposed automated fact-checking methods to fight the spread of fake news. However, most methods cannot explain the reasoning behind their decisions, failing to build trust between machines and humans using such technology. Trust is essential for fact-checking to be applied in the real world. Here, we address fact-checking explainability through question answering. In particular, we propose generating questions and answers from claims and answering the same questions from evidence. We also propose an answer comparison model with an attention mechanism attached to each question. Leveraging question answering as a proxy, we break down automated fact-checking into several steps -- this separation aids models' explainability as it allows for more detailed analysis of their decision-making processes. Experimental results show that the proposed model can achieve state-of-the-art performance while providing reasonable explainable capabilities.

As neural-network-based QA models become deeper and more complex, there is a demand for robust frameworks which can access a model's rationale for its prediction. Current techniques that provide insights on a model's working are either dependent on adversarial datasets or are proposing models with explicit explanation generation components. These techniques are time-consuming and challenging to extend to existing models and new datasets. In this work, we use `Integrated Gradients' to extract rationale for existing state-of-the-art models in the task of Reading Comprehension based Question Answering (RCQA). On detailed analysis and comparison with collected human rationales, we find that though ~40-80% words of extracted rationale coincide with the human rationale (precision), only 6-19% of human rationale is present in the extracted rationale (recall).

Explainable AI techniques that describe agent reward functions can enhance human-robot collaboration in a variety of settings. One context where human understanding of agent reward functions is particularly beneficial is in the value alignment setting. In the value alignment context, an agent aims to infer a human's reward function through interaction so that it can assist the human with their tasks. If the human can understand where gaps exist in the agent's reward understanding, they will be able to teach more efficiently and effectively, leading to quicker human-agent team performance improvements. In order to support human collaborators in the value alignment setting and similar contexts, it is first important to understand the effectiveness of different reward explanation techniques in a variety of domains. In this paper, we introduce a categorization of information modalities for reward explanation techniques, suggest a suite of assessment techniques for human reward understanding, and introduce four axes of domain complexity. We then propose an experiment to study the relative efficacy of a broad set of reward explanation techniques covering multiple modalities of information in a set of domains of varying complexity.

Transformer language models are state-of-the-art in a multitude of NLP tasks. Despite these successes, their opaqueness remains problematic. Recent methods aiming to provide interpretability and explainability to black-box models primarily focus on post-hoc explanations of (sometimes spurious) input-output correlations. Instead, we emphasize using prototype networks directly incorporated into the model architecture and hence explain the reasoning process behind the network's decisions. Moreover, while our architecture performs on par with several language models, it enables one to learn from user interactions. This not only offers a better understanding of language models but uses human capabilities to incorporate knowledge outside of the rigid range of purely data-driven approaches.

We introduce SMProbLog, a generalization of the probabilistic logic programming language ProbLog. A ProbLog program defines a distribution over logic programs by specifying for each clause the probability that it belongs to a randomly sampled program, and these probabilities are mutually independent. The semantics of ProbLog is given by the success probability of a query, which corresponds to the probability that the query succeeds in a randomly sampled program. It is well-defined when each random sample uniquely determines the truth values of all logical atoms. Argumentation problems, however, represent an interesting practical application where this is not always the case. SMProbLog generalizes the semantics of ProbLog to the setting where multiple truth assignments are possible for a randomly sampled program, and implements the corresponding algorithms for both inference and learning tasks. We then show how this novel framework can be used to reason about probabilistic argumentation problems. Therefore, the key contribution of this paper are: a more general semantics for ProbLog programs, its implementation into a probabilistic programming framework for both inference and parameter learning, and a novel approach to probabilistic argumentation problems based on such framework.

Machine learning (ML)-powered AI systems are already affecting every aspect of our lives, from banking, healthcare, industry, and transportation to communications, entertainment, and gaming. The rush to embrace artificial intelligence is at an all-time high. More firms are processing large amounts of data, building models using cutting-edge algorithms, and deploying them into products. We don't often spend the same rigor verifying and validating these models as we do in traditional Software deployment since we're so focused on time-to-market. We will have a team of quality assurance engineers test the system on different combinations of data before putting it in production to ensure it achieves expected outcomes and does not produce undesired results.

For Many People, artificial Intelligence is Something They Only See In Science Fiction Movies, But It's Grown Much More Accessible In Recent Years, Especially In Business. With Technology Evolving Rapidly, ai can Be Utilized In Various Ways To Improve Your Workday. When It Comes To Aiding ... Do You Utilize Social Media Platforms Like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, And Others To Build An Audience, Generate Interaction With Your Business And Goods, And Convert Leads And Sales? ... Few Topics In Science And Technology Have Sparked As Much Interest As Artificial Intelligence, Which Has The Potential To Revolutionize All Areas Of Our Life, According To Some Of The World's Greatest Thinkers. Artificial Intelligence (ai) Can Have A Significant Influence On Organizations And Consumers All ... Conversational Artificial Intelligence (ai) Is The Technology Underlying Automated Messaging Designed To Mimic Human Interactions, And It Is Frequently Used To Initiate Consumers' Online Conversations With Companies. The Software-as-a-service (saas) Business Is Exploding At An Unprecedented Rate.

In this paper, we present and implement a multi-dimensional, modular framework for performing deep argument analysis (DeepA2) using current pre-trained language models (PTLMs). ArgumentAnalyst -- a T5 model (Raffel et al. 2020) set up and trained within DeepA2 -- reconstructs argumentative texts, which advance an informal argumentation, as valid arguments: It inserts, e.g., missing premises and conclusions, formalizes inferences, and coherently links the logical reconstruction to the source text. We create a synthetic corpus for deep argument analysis, and evaluate ArgumentAnalyst on this new dataset as well as on existing data, specifically EntailmentBank (Dalvi et al. 2021). Our empirical findings vindicate the overall framework and highlight the advantages of a modular design, in particular its ability to emulate established heuristics (such as hermeneutic cycles), to explore the model's uncertainty, to cope with the plurality of correct solutions (underdetermination), and to exploit higher-order evidence.

We propose a new method for generating explanations with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and a tool to test its expressive power within a user interface. In order to bridge the gap between philosophy and human-computer interfaces, we show a new approach for the generation of interactive explanations based on a sophisticated pipeline of AI algorithms for structuring natural language documents into knowledge graphs, answering questions effectively and satisfactorily. With this work we aim to prove that the philosophical theory of explanations presented by Achinstein can be actually adapted for being implemented into a concrete software application, as an interactive and illocutionary process of answering questions. Specifically, our contribution is an approach to frame illocution in a computer-friendly way, to achieve user-centrality with statistical question answering. In fact, we frame illocution, in an explanatory process, as that mechanism responsible for anticipating the needs of the explainee in the form of unposed, implicit, archetypal questions, hence improving the user-centrality of the underlying explanatory process. More precisely, we hypothesise that given an arbitrary explanatory process, increasing its goal-orientedness and degree of illocution results in the generation of more usable (as per ISO 9241-210) explanations. We tested our hypotheses with a user-study involving more than 60 participants, on two XAI-based systems, one for credit approval (finance) and one for heart disease prediction (healthcare). The results showed that our proposed solution produced a statistically significant improvement (hence with a p-value lower than 0.05) on effectiveness. This, combined with a visible alignment between the increments in effectiveness and satisfaction, suggests that our understanding of illocution can be correct, giving evidence in favour of our theory.