In the field of Artificial Intelligence, the trade-off between accuracy and interpretability is a crucial aspect when developing a machine learning pipeline. Accuracy refers to the correctness degree of model predictions, while interpretability specifies how easy is the human understanding of the results. The balance between the two is related to the final business needs. When we try to explain the output of our ML pipeline we should consider a crucial aspect. Interpretability may not result in explainability.

The increasingly widespread application of AI models motivates increased demand for explanations from a variety of stakeholders. However, this demand is ambiguous because there are many types of 'explanation' with different evaluative criteria. In the spirit of pluralism, I chart a taxonomy of types of explanation and the associated XAI methods that can address them. When we look to expose the inner mechanisms of AI models, we develop Diagnostic-explanations. When we seek to render model output understandable, we produce Explication-explanations. When we wish to form stable generalizations of our models, we produce Expectation-explanations. Finally, when we want to justify the usage of a model, we produce Role-explanations that situate models within their social context. The motivation for such a pluralistic view stems from a consideration of causes as manipulable relationships and the different types of explanations as identifying the relevant points in AI systems we can intervene upon to affect our desired changes. This paper reduces the ambiguity in use of the word 'explanation' in the field of XAI, allowing practitioners and stakeholders a useful template for avoiding equivocation and evaluating XAI methods and putative explanations.

Explainable machine learning models primarily justify predicted labels using either extractive rationales (i.e., subsets of input features) or free-text natural language explanations (NLEs) as abstractive justifications. While NLEs can be more comprehensive than extractive rationales, machine-generated NLEs have been shown to sometimes lack commonsense knowledge. Here, we show that commonsense knowledge can act as a bridge between extractive rationales and NLEs, rendering both types of explanations better. More precisely, we introduce a unified framework, called RExC (Rationale-Inspired Explanations with Commonsense), that (1) extracts rationales as a set of features responsible for machine predictions, (2) expands the extractive rationales using available commonsense resources, and (3) uses the expanded knowledge to generate natural language explanations. Our framework surpasses by a large margin the previous state-of-the-art in generating NLEs across five tasks in both natural language processing and vision-language understanding, with human annotators consistently rating the explanations generated by RExC to be more comprehensive, grounded in commonsense, and overall preferred compared to previous state-of-the-art models. Moreover, our work shows that commonsense-grounded explanations can enhance both task performance and rationales extraction capabilities.

As we know, Machine Learning is ubiquitous in our day to day lives. From product recommendations on Amazon, targeted advertising, and suggestions of what to watch, to funny Instagram filters. If something goes wrong with these, it probably won't ruin your life. Maybe you won't get that perfect selfie, or maybe companies will have to spend more on advertising. We need to be able to dissect our model, we will need to be able to understand and explain our model before it goes anywhere near a production system.

The study of computational models for argumentation is a vibrant area of artificial intelligence and, in particular, knowledge representation and reasoning research. Arguments most often have an intrinsic structure made explicit through derivations from more basic structures. Computational models for structured argumentation enable making the internal structure of arguments explicit. Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured formalism for argumentation in AI. In this article, we make both algorithmic and complexity-theoretic advances in the study of ABA. In terms of algorithms, we propose a new approach to reasoning in a commonly studied fragment of ABA (namely the logic programming fragment) with and without preferences. While previous approaches to reasoning over ABA frameworks apply either specialized algorithms or translate ABA reasoning to reasoning over abstract argumentation frameworks, we develop a direct declarative approach to ABA reasoning by encoding ABA reasoning tasks in answer set programming. We show via an extensive empirical evaluation that our approach significantly improves on the empirical performance of current ABA reasoning systems. In terms of computational complexity, while the complexity of reasoning over ABA frameworks is well-understood, the complexity of reasoning in the ABA+ formalism integrating preferences into ABA is currently not fully established. Towards bridging this gap, our results suggest that the integration of preferential information into ABA via so-called reverse attacks results in increased problem complexity for several central argumentation semantics.

This volume contains revised versions of the papers selected for the second volume of the Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI (OHAAI). Previously, formal theories of argument and argument interaction have been proposed and studied, and this has led to the more recent study of computational models of argument. Argumentation, as a field within artificial intelligence (AI), is highly relevant for researchers interested in symbolic representations of knowledge and defeasible reasoning. The purpose of this handbook is to provide an open access and curated anthology for the argumentation research community. OHAAI is designed to serve as a research hub to keep track of the latest and upcoming PhD-driven research on the theory and application of argumentation in all areas related to AI.

NLP or natural language processing, human-like comprehension and explainable AI all sound like buzz words, but they are all incredibly important. Luca Scagliarini is chief product officer at Expert.AI and has been looking into NLP long before it was cool. The full interview is in this video, but here is some background. Watch the video for the full interview and to lear more about Luca Scagliarini's wealth of knowledge on various AI technologies and how they are being applied.

In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When confronted with such situations, we may wish to aggregate individuals' argumentation views on support-relations into a collective view, which is acceptable to the group. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments, but with possibly different support-relations. Using the methodology in social choice theory, we analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules during the aggregation of support-relations.

Explaining the predictions of opaque machine learning algorithms is an important and challenging task, especially as complex models are increasingly used to assist in high-stakes decisions such as those arising in healthcare and finance. Most popular tools for post-hoc explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are either insensitive to context (e.g., feature attributions) or difficult to summarize (e.g., counterfactuals). In this paper, I introduce \emph{rational Shapley values}, a novel XAI method that synthesizes and extends these seemingly incompatible approaches in a rigorous, flexible manner. I leverage tools from decision theory and causal modeling to formalize and implement a pragmatic approach that resolves a number of known challenges in XAI. By pairing the distribution of random variables with the appropriate reference class for a given explanation task, I illustrate through theory and experiments how user goals and knowledge can inform and constrain the solution set in an iterative fashion. The method compares favorably to state of the art XAI tools in a range of quantitative and qualitative comparisons.

Counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples have emerged as critical research areas for addressing the explainability and robustness goals of machine learning (ML). While counterfactual explanations were developed with the goal of providing recourse to individuals adversely impacted by algorithmic decisions, adversarial examples were designed to expose the vulnerabilities of ML models. While prior research has hinted at the commonalities between these frameworks, there has been little to no work on systematically exploring the connections between the literature on counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples. In this work, we make one of the first attempts at formalizing the connections between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples. More specifically, we theoretically analyze salient counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods, and highlight the conditions under which they behave similarly. Our analysis demonstrates that several popular counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods such as the ones proposed by Wachter et. al. and Carlini and Wagner (with mean squared error loss), and C-CHVAE and natural adversarial examples by Zhao et. al. are equivalent. We also bound the distance between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples generated by Wachter et. al. and DeepFool methods for linear models. Finally, we empirically validate our theoretical findings using extensive experimentation with synthetic and real world datasets.