The European Union (EU) through the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI-HLEG) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has recently posed an interesting challenge to the eXplainable AI (XAI) community, by demanding a more user-centred approach to explain Automated Decision-Making systems (ADMs). Looking at the relevant literature, XAI is currently focused on producing explainable software and explanations that generally follow an approach we could term One-Size-Fits-All, that is unable to meet a requirement of centring on user needs. One of the causes of this limit is the belief that making things explainable alone is enough to have pragmatic explanations. Thus, insisting on a clear separation between explainabilty (something that can be explained) and explanations, we point to explanatorY AI (YAI) as an alternative and more powerful approach to win the AI-HLEG challenge. YAI builds over XAI with the goal to collect and organize explainable information, articulating it into something we called user-centred explanatory discourses. Through the use of explanatory discourses/narratives we represent the problem of generating explanations for Automated Decision-Making systems (ADMs) into the identification of an appropriate path over an explanatory space, allowing explainees to interactively explore it and produce the explanation best suited to their needs.

Provide insights into AI-Human communication. Define levels of explanation with identified techniques that align with AI cognitive processes. Over the last few years there has been rapid research growth into eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) and the closely aligned Interpretable Machine Learning (IML). Drivers for this growth include recent legislative changes and increased investments by industry and governments, along with increased concern from the general public. People are affected by autonomous decisions every day and the public need to understand the decision-making process to accept the outcomes. However, the vast majority of the applications of XAI/IML are focused on providing low-level ‘narrow’ explanations of how an individual decision was reached based on a particular datum.

It is well-known that artificial intelligence is reining the throne of cutting-edge technologies in multiple organizations and industries for the last few years. Every organization is instigated to leverage the smart functionalities of AI models to gain a competitive edge in the tech-driven market. But one has to keep Explainable AI or XAI in mind before completing the process of leveraging artificial intelligence in existing systems. Let us explore some of the top characteristics of Explainable AI that are important for organizations to know. At first, organizations need to have sufficient knowledge of Explainable AI before diving into the characteristics to leverage.

State of the art Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques have reached an impressive complexity. Consequently, researchers are discovering more and more methods to use them in real-world applications. However, the complexity of such systems requires the introduction of methods that make those transparent to the human user. The AI community is trying to overcome the problem by introducing the Explainable AI (XAI) field, which is tentative to make AI algorithms less opaque. However, in recent years, it became clearer that XAI is much more than a computer science problem: since it is about communication, XAI is also a Human-Agent Interaction problem. Moreover, AI came out of the laboratories to be used in real life.

This section highlights the impact of the AIX360 toolkit in the first two years since its release. It describes several different forms of impact on real problem domains and the open source community. This impact has resulted in improvements in multiple metrics: accuracy, semiconductor yield, satisfaction rate, and domain expert time. The current version of the AIX360 toolkit includes ten explainability algorithms described in Table 1 covering different ways of explaining. Explanation methods could be either local or global, where the former refers to explaining an AI model's decision for a single instance, while the latter refers to explaining a model in its entirety.

MatrixX is a solver for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. Offensive and defensive properties of an Argumentation Framework are notated in a matrix style. Rows and columns of this matrix are systematically reduced by the solver. This procedure is implemented through the use of hash maps in order to accelerate calculation time. MatrixX works for stable and complete semantics and was designed for the ICCMA 2021 competition.

Human environments are often regulated by explicit and complex rulesets. Integrating Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents into such environments motivates the development of learning mechanisms that perform well in rule-dense and exception-ridden environments such as autonomous driving on regulated roads. In this paper, we propose a method for organising experience by means of partitioning the experience buffer into clusters labelled on a per-explanation basis. We present discrete and continuous navigation environments compatible with modular rulesets and 9 learning tasks. For environments with explainable rulesets, we convert rule-based explanations into case-based explanations by allocating state-transitions into clusters labelled with explanations. This allows us to sample experiences in a curricular and task-oriented manner, focusing on the rarity, importance, and meaning of events. We label this concept Explanation-Awareness (XA). We perform XA experience replay (XAER) with intra and inter-cluster prioritisation, and introduce XA-compatible versions of DQN, TD3, and SAC. Performance is consistently superior with XA versions of those algorithms, compared to traditional Prioritised Experience Replay baselines, indicating that explanation engineering can be used in lieu of reward engineering for environments with explainable features.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type-2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a global pandemic that has taken more than 4.5 million lives and severely affected the global economy. To curb the spread of the virus, an accurate, cost-effective, and quick testing for large populations is exceedingly important in order to identify, isolate, and treat infected people. Current testing methods commonly use PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) based equipment that have limitations on throughput, cost-effectiveness, and simplicity of procedure which creates a compelling need for developing additional coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) testing mechanisms, that are highly sensitive, rapid, trustworthy, and convenient to use by the public. We propose a COVID-19 testing method using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques on MALDI-ToF (matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight) data extracted from 152 human gargle samples (60 COVID-19 positive tests and 92 COVID-19 negative tests). Our AI-based approach leverages explainable-AI (X-AI) methods to explain the decision rules behind the predictive algorithm both on a local (per-sample) and global (all-samples) basis to make the AI model more trustworthy. Finally, we evaluated our proposed method using a 70%-30% train-test-split strategy and achieved a training accuracy of 86.79% and a testing accuracy of 91.30%.

Enabling humans to identify potential flaws in an agent's decision making is an important Explainable AI application. We consider identifying such flaws in a planning-based deep reinforcement learning (RL) agent for a complex real-time strategy game. In particular, the agent makes decisions via tree search using a learned model and evaluation function over interpretable states and actions. This gives the potential for humans to identify flaws at the level of reasoning steps in the tree, even if the entire reasoning process is too complex to understand. However, it is unclear whether humans will be able to identify such flaws due to the size and complexity of trees. We describe a user interface and case study, where a small group of AI experts and developers attempt to identify reasoning flaws due to inaccurate agent learning. Overall, the interface allowed the group to identify a number of significant flaws of varying types, demonstrating the promise of this approach.

While recent advances in AI-based automated decision-making have shown many benefits for businesses and society, they also come at a cost. It has for long been known that a high level of automation of decisions can lead to various drawbacks, such as automation bias and deskilling. In particular, the deskilling of knowledge workers is a major issue, as they are the same people who should also train, challenge and evolve AI. To address this issue, we conceptualize a new class of DSS, namely Intelligent Decision Assistance (IDA) based on a literature review of two different research streams -- DSS and automation. IDA supports knowledge workers without influencing them through automated decision-making. Specifically, we propose to use techniques of Explainable AI (XAI) while withholding concrete AI recommendations. To test this conceptualization, we develop hypotheses on the impacts of IDA and provide first evidence for their validity based on empirical studies in the literature.