Existing studies on disease diagnostic models focus either on diagnostic model learning for performance improvement or on the visual explanation of a trained diagnostic model. We propose a novel learn-explain-reinforce (LEAR) framework that unifies diagnostic model learning, visual explanation generation (explanation unit), and trained diagnostic model reinforcement (reinforcement unit) guided by the visual explanation. For the visual explanation, we generate a counterfactual map that transforms an input sample to be identified as an intended target label. For example, a counterfactual map can localize hypothetical abnormalities within a normal brain image that may cause it to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD). We believe that the generated counterfactual maps represent data-driven and model-induced knowledge about a target task, i.e., AD diagnosis using structural MRI, which can be a vital source of information to reinforce the generalization of the trained diagnostic model. To this end, we devise an attention-based feature refinement module with the guidance of the counterfactual maps. The explanation and reinforcement units are reciprocal and can be operated iteratively. Our proposed approach was validated via qualitative and quantitative analysis on the ADNI dataset. Its comprehensibility and fidelity were demonstrated through ablation studies and comparisons with existing methods.

Broad Explainable Artificial Intelligence moves away from interpreting individual decisions based on a single datum and aims to provide integrated explanations from multiple machine learning algorithms into a coherent explanation of an agent's behaviour that is aligned to the communication needs of the explainee. Reinforcement Learning (RL) methods, we propose, provide a potential backbone for the cognitive model required for the development of Broad-XAI. RL represents a suite of approaches that have had increasing success in solving a range of sequential decision-making problems. However, these algorithms all operate as black-box problem solvers, where they obfuscate their decision-making policy through a complex array of values and functions. EXplainable RL (XRL) is relatively recent field of research that aims to develop techniques to extract concepts from the agent's: perception of the environment; intrinsic/extrinsic motivations/beliefs; Q-values, goals and objectives. This paper aims to introduce a conceptual framework, called the Causal XRL Framework (CXF), that unifies the current XRL research and uses RL as a backbone to the development of Broad-XAI. Additionally, we recognise that RL methods have the ability to incorporate a range of technologies to allow agents to adapt to their environment. CXF is designed for the incorporation of many standard RL extensions and integrated with external ontologies and communication facilities so that the agent can answer questions that explain outcomes and justify its decisions.

Counterfactual explanation methods interpret the outputs of a machine learning model in the form of "what-if scenarios" without compromising the fidelity-interpretability trade-off. They explain how to obtain a desired prediction from the model by recommending small changes to the input features, aka recourse. We believe an actionable recourse should be created based on sound counterfactual explanations originating from the distribution of the ground-truth data and linked to the domain knowledge. Moreover, it needs to preserve the coherency between changed/unchanged features while satisfying user/domain-specified constraints. This paper introduces CARE, a modular explanation framework that addresses the model- and user-level desiderata in a consecutive and structured manner. We tackle the existing requirements by proposing novel and efficient solutions that are formulated in a multi-objective optimization framework. The designed framework enables including arbitrary requirements and generating counterfactual explanations and actionable recourse by choice. As a model-agnostic approach, CARE generates multiple, diverse explanations for any black-box model in tabular classification and regression settings. Several experiments on standard data sets and black-box models demonstrate the effectiveness of our modular framework and its superior performance compared to the baselines.

Regulators have signalled an interest in adopting explainable AI(XAI) techniques to handle the diverse needs for model governance, operational servicing, and compliance in the financial services industry. In this short overview, we review the recent technical literature in XAI and argue that based on our current understanding of the field, the use of XAI techniques in practice necessitate a highly contextualized approach considering the specific needs of stakeholders for particular business applications.

With the increasing deployment of AI systems in high-stakes decision-making domains such as healthcare, finance and law, the technology's explainability has become an issue of public concern. Explainable AI (XAI) is critical for earning the trust of end-users with regard to the outputs generated by machine learning (ML) algorithms, and the research community in recent years has strived to bring more transparency to the inner workings of AI systems by addressing this "black box" problem. The question of just who is going to open the box has however remained relatively underexplored. In a new paper, a team from Georgia Institute of Technology, Cornell University and IBM Research conducts a mixed-methods study on how people with and without expert knowledge of AI perceive different types of AI explanations. The researchers first conducted a systematic review of related work regarding trust, acceptance, and engagement of autonomous or AI systems, followed by informal interviews with six experts spanning human-computer interactions (HCI), AI, and human-robot interactions (HRI).

AI business process applications automate high-stakes business decisions where there is an increasing demand to justify or explain the rationale behind algorithmic decisions. Business process applications have ordering or constraints on tasks and feature values that cause lightweight, model-agnostic, existing explanation methods like LIME to fail. In response, we propose a local explanation framework extending LIME for explaining AI business process applications. Empirical evaluation of our extension underscores the advantage of our approach in the business process setting.

When interacting in unstructured human environments, occasional robot failures are inevitable. When such failures occur, everyday people, rather than trained technicians, will be the first to respond. Existing natural language explanations hand-annotate contextual information from an environment to help everyday people understand robot failures. However, this methodology lacks generalizability and scalability. In our work, we introduce a more generalizable semantic explanation framework. Our framework autonomously captures the semantic information in a scene to produce semantically descriptive explanations for everyday users. To generate failure-focused explanations that are semantically grounded, we leverages both semantic scene graphs to extract spatial relations and object attributes from an environment, as well as pairwise ranking. Our results show that these semantically descriptive explanations significantly improve everyday users' ability to both identify failures and provide assistance for recovery than the existing state-of-the-art context-based explanations.

The capability to interactively learn from human feedback would enable robots in new social settings. For example, novice users could train service robots in new tasks naturally and interactively. Human-in-the-loop Reinforcement Learning (HRL) addresses this issue by combining human feedback and reinforcement learning (RL) techniques. State-of-the-art interactive learning techniques suffer from slow convergence, thus leading to a frustrating experience for the human. This work approaches this problem by extending the existing TAMER Framework with the possibility to enhance human feedback with two different types of counterfactual explanations. We demonstrate our extensions' success in improving the convergence, especially in the crucial early phases of the training.

With the availability of large datasets and ever-increasing computing power, there has been a growing use of data-driven artificial intelligence systems, which have shown their potential for successful application in diverse areas. However, many of these systems are not able to provide information about the rationale behind their decisions to their users. Lack of understanding of such decisions can be a major drawback, especially in critical domains such as those related to cybersecurity. In light of this problem, in this paper we make three contributions: (i) proposal and discussion of desiderata for the explanation of outputs generated by AI-based cybersecurity systems; (ii) a comparative analysis of approaches in the literature on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) under the lens of both our desiderata and further dimensions that are typically used for examining XAI approaches; and (iii) a general architecture that can serve as a roadmap for guiding research efforts towards the development of explainable AI-based cybersecurity systems -- at its core, this roadmap proposes combinations of several research lines in a novel way towards tackling the unique challenges that arise in this context.

AI systems have seen significant adoption in various domains. At the same time, further adoption in some domains is hindered by inability to fully trust an AI system that it will not harm a human. Besides the concerns for fairness, privacy, transparency, and explainability are key to developing trusts in AI systems. As stated in describing trustworthy AI "Trust comes through understanding. How AI-led decisions are made and what determining factors were included are crucial to understand." The subarea of explaining AI systems has come to be known as XAI. Multiple aspects of an AI system can be explained; these include biases that the data might have, lack of data points in a particular region of the example space, fairness of gathering the data, feature importances, etc. However, besides these, it is critical to have human-centered explanations that are directly related to decision-making similar to how a domain expert makes decisions based on "domain knowledge," that also include well-established, peer-validated explicit guidelines. To understand and validate an AI system's outcomes (such as classification, recommendations, predictions), that lead to developing trust in the AI system, it is necessary to involve explicit domain knowledge that humans understand and use.