Automated decision systems (ADS) have become ubiquitous in many high-stakes domains. Those systems typically involve sophisticated yet opaque artificial intelligence (AI) techniques that seldom allow for full comprehension of their inner workings, particularly for affected individuals. As a result, ADS are prone to deficient oversight and calibration, which can lead to undesirable (e.g., unfair) outcomes. In this work, we conduct an online study with 200 participants to examine people's perceptions of fairness and trustworthiness towards ADS in comparison to a scenario where a human instead of an ADS makes a high-stakes decision -- and we provide thorough identical explanations regarding decisions in both cases. Surprisingly, we find that people perceive ADS as fairer than human decision-makers. Our analyses also suggest that people's AI literacy affects their perceptions, indicating that people with higher AI literacy favor ADS more strongly over human decision-makers, whereas low-AI-literacy people exhibit no significant differences in their perceptions.

Rapid improvements in the performance of machine learning models have pushed them to the forefront of data-driven decision-making. Meanwhile, the increased integration of these models into various application domains has further highlighted the need for greater interpretability and transparency. To identify problems such as bias, overfitting, and incorrect correlations, data scientists require tools that explain the mechanisms with which these model decisions are made. In this paper we introduce AdViCE, a visual analytics tool that aims to guide users in black-box model debugging and validation. The solution rests on two main visual user interface innovations: (1) an interactive visualization design that enables the comparison of decisions on user-defined data subsets; (2) an algorithm and visual design to compute and visualize counterfactual explanations - explanations that depict model outcomes when data features are perturbed from their original values. We provide a demonstration of the tool through a use case that showcases the capabilities and potential limitations of the proposed approach.

Numerous government initiatives (e.g. the EU with GDPR) are coming to the conclusion that the increasing complexity of modern software systems must be contrasted with some Rights to Explanation and metrics for the Impact Assessment of these tools, that allow humans to understand and oversee the output of Automated Decision Making systems. Explainable AI was born as a pathway to allow humans to explore and understand the inner working of complex systems. But establishing what is an explanation and objectively evaluating explainability, are not trivial tasks. With this paper, we present a new model-agnostic metric to measure the Degree of eXplainability of correct information in an objective way, exploiting a specific model from Ordinary Language Philosophy called the Achinstein's Theory of Explanations. In order to understand whether this metric is actually behaving as explainability is expected to, we designed a few experiments and a user-study on two realistic AI-based systems for healthcare and finance, involving famous AI technology including Artificial Neural Networks and TreeSHAP. The results we obtained are very encouraging, suggesting that our proposed metric for measuring the Degree of eXplainability is robust on several scenarios and it can be eventually exploited for a lawful Impact Assessment of an Automated Decision Making system.

The transition to a renewable energy system poses challenges for power grid operation and stability. Secondary control is key in restoring the power system to its reference following a disturbance. Underestimating the necessary control capacity may require emergency measures, such as load shedding. Hence, a solid understanding of the emerging risks and the driving factors of control is needed. In this contribution, we establish an explainable machine learning model for the activation of secondary control power in Germany. Training gradient boosted trees, we obtain an accurate description of control activation. Using SHapely Additive exPlanation (SHAP) values, we investigate the dependency between control activation and external features such as the generation mix, forecasting errors, and electricity market data. Thereby, our analysis reveals drivers that lead to high reserve requirements in the German power system. Our transparent approach, utilizing open data and making machine learning models interpretable, opens new scientific discovery avenues.

We propose a new method for explanations in 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. Among the mainstream philosophical theories of explanation we identified one that in our view is more easily applicable as a practical model for user-centric tools: Achinstein's Theory of Explanation. With this work we aim to prove that the theory proposed by Achinstein can be actually adapted for being implemented into a concrete software application, as an interactive process answering questions. To this end we found a way to handle the generic (archetypal) questions that implicitly characterise an explanatory processes as preliminary overviews rather than as answers to explicit questions, as commonly understood. To show the expressive power of this approach we designed and implemented a pipeline of AI algorithms for the generation of interactive explanations under the form of overviews, focusing on this aspect of explanations rather than on existing interfaces and presentation logic layers for question answering. We tested our hypothesis on a well-known XAI-powered credit approval system by IBM, comparing CEM, a static explanatory tool for post-hoc explanations, with an extension we developed adding interactive explanations based on our model. The results of the user study, involving more than 100 participants, showed that our proposed solution produced a statistically relevant improvement on effectiveness (U=931.0, p=0.036) over the baseline, thus giving evidence in favour of our theory.

The Workshop Program of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence's Thirty-Fifth Conference on Artificial Intelligence was held virtually from February 8-9, 2021. There were twenty-six workshops in the program: Affective Content Analysis, AI for Behavior Change, AI for Urban Mobility, Artificial Intelligence Safety, Combating Online Hostile Posts in Regional Languages during Emergency Situations, Commonsense Knowledge Graphs, Content Authoring and Design, Deep Learning on Graphs: Methods and Applications, Designing AI for Telehealth, 9th Dialog System Technology Challenge, Explainable Agency in Artificial Intelligence, Graphs and More Complex Structures for Learning and Reasoning, 5th International Workshop on Health Intelligence, Hybrid Artificial Intelligence, Imagining Post-COVID Education with AI, Knowledge Discovery from Unstructured Data in Financial Services, Learning Network Architecture During Training, Meta-Learning and Co-Hosted Competition, ...

Insurance is moving toward a world in which carriers will not be allowed to make decisions that affect customers based on black-box AI. Artificial intelligence (AI) holds a lot of promise for the insurance industry, particularly for reducing premium leakage, accelerating claims and making underwriting more accurate. AI can identify patterns and indicators of risk that would otherwise go unnoticed by human eyes. Unfortunately, AI has often been a black box: Data goes in, results come out and no one -- not even the creators of the AI -- has any idea how the AI came to its conclusions. That's because pure machine learning (ML) analyzes the data in an iterative fashion to develop a model, and that process is simply not available or understandable.

The pyglaf reasoner takes advantage of circumscription to solve computational problems of abstract argumentation frameworks. In fact, many of these problems are reduced to circumscription by means of linear encodings, and a few others are solved by means of a sequence of calls to an oracle for circumscription. Within pyglaf, Python is used to build the encodings and to control the execution of the external circumscription solver, which extends the SAT solver glucose and implements algorithms taking advantage of unsatisfiable core analysis and incremental computation.

We present Fudge, an abstract argumentation solver that tightly integrates satisfiability solving technology to solve a series of abstract argumentation problems. While most of the encodings used by Fudge derive from standard translation approaches, Fudge makes use of completely novel encodings to solve the skeptical reasoning problem wrt. preferred semantics and problems wrt. ideal semantics.

We propose CX-ToM, short for counterfactual explanations with theory-of mind, a new explainable AI (XAI) framework for explaining decisions made by a deep convolutional neural network (CNN). In contrast to the current methods in XAI that generate explanations as a single shot response, we pose explanation as an iterative communication process, i.e. dialog, between the machine and human user. More concretely, our CX-ToM framework generates sequence of explanations in a dialog by mediating the differences between the minds of machine and human user. To do this, we use Theory of Mind (ToM) which helps us in explicitly modeling human's intention, machine's mind as inferred by the human as well as human's mind as inferred by the machine. Moreover, most state-of-the-art XAI frameworks provide attention (or heat map) based explanations. In our work, we show that these attention based explanations are not sufficient for increasing human trust in the underlying CNN model. In CX-ToM, we instead use counterfactual explanations called fault-lines which we define as follows: given an input image I for which a CNN classification model M predicts class c_pred, a fault-line identifies the minimal semantic-level features (e.g., stripes on zebra, pointed ears of dog), referred to as explainable concepts, that need to be added to or deleted from I in order to alter the classification category of I by M to another specified class c_alt. We argue that, due to the iterative, conceptual and counterfactual nature of CX-ToM explanations, our framework is practical and more natural for both expert and non-expert users to understand the internal workings of complex deep learning models. Extensive quantitative and qualitative experiments verify our hypotheses, demonstrating that our CX-ToM significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art explainable AI models.