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 implies the need for XAI solutions tailored to non-expert users. Hence, we propose a user-centred framework for XAI that focuses on its social-interactive aspect taking inspiration from cognitive and social sciences' theories and findings. The framework aims to provide a structure for interactive XAI solutions thought for non-expert users.

To make Explainable AI (XAI) systems trustworthy, understanding harmful effects is just as important as producing well-designed explanations. In this paper, we address an important yet unarticulated type of negative effect in XAI. We introduce explainability pitfalls (EPs), unanticipated negative downstream effects from AI explanations manifesting even when there is no intention to manipulate users. EPs are different from, yet related to, dark patterns, which are intentionally deceptive practices. We articulate the concept of EPs by demarcating it from dark patterns and highlighting the challenges arising from uncertainties around pitfalls. We situate and operationalize the concept using a case study that showcases how, despite best intentions, unsuspecting negative effects such as unwarranted trust in numerical explanations can emerge. We propose proactive and preventative strategies to address EPs at three interconnected levels: research, design, and organizational.

It is interesting to decipher the working of Machine Learning through a web-based dashboard. Imagine gaining access to the interactive plots displaying information on model performance, feature importance as well as What-if analysis. What is exciting is that one does not need any web development expertise to build such an informative dashboard but simple few lines of python code are sufficient to generate a stunningly interactive Machine Learning Dashboard. This is possible by using a library called'Explainer Dashboard'. The ExplainerDashboard is a python package which generates interactive dashboards which allow users to understand as well as explain how the model works and how it is deciding the outcome.

During a research project in which we developed a machine learning (ML) driven visualization system for non-ML experts, we reflected on interpretability research in ML, computer-supported collaborative work and human-computer interaction. We found that while there are manifold technical approaches, these often focus on ML experts and are evaluated in decontextualized empirical studies. We hypothesized that participatory design research may support the understanding of stakeholders' situated sense-making in our project, yet, found guidance regarding ML interpretability inexhaustive. Building on philosophy of technology, we formulated explanation strategies as an empirical-analytical lens explicating how technical explanations mediate the contextual preferences concerning people's interpretations. In this paper, we contribute a report of our proof-of-concept use of explanation strategies to analyze a co-design workshop with non-ML experts, methodological implications for participatory design research, design implications for explanations for non-ML experts and suggest further investigation of technological mediation theories in the ML interpretability space.

Feedback can help crowdworkers to improve their ideations. However, current feedback methods require human assessment from facilitators or peers. This is not scalable to large crowds. We propose Interpretable Directed Diversity to automatically predict ideation quality and diversity scores, and provide AI explanations - Attribution, Contrastive Attribution, and Counterfactual Suggestions - for deeper feedback on why ideations were scored (low), and how to get higher scores. These explanations provide multi-faceted feedback as users iteratively improve their ideation. We conducted think aloud and controlled user studies to understand how various explanations are used, and evaluated whether explanations improve ideation diversity and quality. Users appreciated that explanation feedback helped focus their efforts and provided directions for improvement. This resulted in explanations improving diversity compared to no feedback or feedback with predictions only. Hence, our approach opens opportunities for explainable AI towards scalable and rich feedback for iterative crowd ideation.

In many applications, it is important to be able to explain the decisions of machine learning systems. An increasingly popular approach has been to seek to provide \emph{counterfactual instance explanations}. These specify close possible worlds in which, contrary to the facts, a person receives their desired decision from the machine learning system. This paper will draw on literature from the philosophy of science to argue that a satisfactory explanation must consist of both counterfactual instances and a causal equation (or system of equations) that support the counterfactual instances. We will show that counterfactual instances by themselves explain little. We will further illustrate how explainable AI methods that provide both causal equations and counterfactual instances can successfully explain machine learning predictions.

Since 2015, the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) provides a systematic comparison of the different algorithms for solving some classical reasoning problems in the domain of abstract argumentation. This paper discusses the design of the Fourth International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation. We describe the rules of the competition and the benchmark selection method that we used. After a brief presentation of the competitors, we give an overview of the results.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) [4, 5] is a popular paradigm for decision making and problem solving in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. It has been successfully applied in a variety of applications such as robotics, planning, diagnosis, etc. ASP is an attractive programming paradigm as it is a declarative language, where programmers focus on the representation of a specific problem as a set of rules in a logical format, and then leave computational solutions of that problem to an answer set solver. However, this mechanism typically gives little insight into why something is a solution and why some proposed set of literals is not a solution. This type of reasoning falls within the scope of explainable Artificial Intelligence and is useful to enhance the understanding of the resulting solutions as well as for debugging programs. So far, only a limited number of approaches have been proposed [1, 6, 7].

Contrastive explanations for understanding the behavior of black box models has gained a lot of attention recently as they provide potential for recourse. In this paper, we propose a method Contrastive Attributed explanations for Text (CAT) which provides contrastive explanations for natural language text data with a novel twist as we build and exploit attribute classifiers leading to more semantically meaningful explanations. To ensure that our contrastive generated text has the fewest possible edits with respect to the original text, while also being fluent and close to a human generated contrastive, we resort to a minimal perturbation approach regularized using a BERT language model and attribute classifiers trained on available attributes. We show through qualitative examples and a user study that our method not only conveys more insight because of these attributes, but also leads to better quality (contrastive) text. Moreover, quantitatively we show that our method is more efficient than other state-of-the-art methods with it also scoring higher on benchmark metrics such as flip rate, (normalized) Levenstein distance, fluency and content preservation.

Counterfactual explanations focus on "actionable knowledge" to help end-users understand how a machine learning outcome could be changed to a more desirable outcome. For this purpose a counterfactual explainer needs to discover input dependencies that relate to outcome changes. Identifying the minimum subset of feature changes needed to action an output change in the decision is an interesting challenge for counterfactual explainers. The DisCERN algorithm introduced in this paper is a case-based counter-factual explainer. Here counterfactuals are formed by replacing feature values from a nearest unlike neighbour (NUN) until an actionable change is observed. We show how widely adopted feature relevance-based explainers (i.e. LIME, SHAP), can inform DisCERN to identify the minimum subset of "actionable features". We demonstrate our DisCERN algorithm on five datasets in a comparative study with the widely used optimisation-based counterfactual approach DiCE. Our results demonstrate that DisCERN is an effective strategy to minimise actionable changes necessary to create good counterfactual explanations.