Several social factors impact how people respond to AI explanations used to justify AI decisions affecting them personally. In this position paper, we define a framework called the \textit{layers of explanation} (LEx), a lens through which we can assess the appropriateness of different types of explanations. The framework uses the notions of \textit{sensitivity} (emotional responsiveness) of features and the level of \textit{stakes} (decision's consequence) in a domain to determine whether different types of explanations are \textit{appropriate} in a given context. We demonstrate how to use the framework to assess the appropriateness of different types of explanations in different domains.

In this paper we suggest NICE: a new algorithm to generate counterfactual explanations for heterogeneous tabular data. The design of our algorithm specifically takes into account algorithmic requirements that often emerge in real-life deployments: the ability to provide an explanation for all predictions, being efficient in run-time, and being able to handle any classification model (also non-differentiable ones). More specifically, our approach exploits information from a nearest instance tospeed up the search process. We propose four versions of NICE, where three of them optimize the explanations for one of the following properties: sparsity, proximity or plausibility. An extensive empirical comparison on 10 datasets shows that our algorithm performs better on all properties than the current state-of-the-art. These analyses show a trade-off between on the one hand plausiblity and on the other hand proximity or sparsity, with our different optimization methods offering the choice to select the preferred trade-off. An open-source implementation of NICE can be found at https://github.com/ADMAntwerp/NICE.

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com. There's been a lot of buzz on Capitol Hill lately around the term "budget reconciliation." It's how the Senate passed another COVID-19 stimulus relief in March, this one worth $1.9 trillion. Now, it's at the forefront again as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus mull new ways to pass a developing infrastructure package amid a gridlocked upper chamber.

Abstract: Intelligent information systems that contain emergent elements often encounter trust problems because results do not get sufficiently explained and the procedure itself can not be fully retraced. This is caused by a control flow depending either on stochastic elements or on the structure and relevance of the input data. Trust in such algorithms can be established by letting users interact with the system so that they can explore results and find patterns that can be compared with their expected solution. Reflecting features and patterns of human understanding of a domain against algorithmic results can create awareness of such patterns and may increase the trust that a user has in the solution. If expectations are not met, close inspection can be used to decide whether a solution conforms to the expectations or whether it goes beyond the expected. By either accepting or rejecting a solution, the user's set of expectations evolves and a learning process for the users is established. In this paper we present a conceptual framework that reflects and supports this process. The framework is the result of an analysis of two exemplary case studies from two different disciplines with information systems that assist experts in their complex tasks. Keywords: Intelligent Systems, AI, Trust, Explainable AI, Knowledge Management, Knowledge Patterns 1. INTRODUCTION uncommon and have been constructed in uncommon ways. Such techniques, a class to which systems that we now Human expertise in many aspects is largely based on call intelligent systems belong to, produce results of high prior knowledge and familiar patterns, which have either complexity (e.g.

Machine learning-based systems are rapidly gaining popularity and in-line with that there has been a huge research surge in the field of explainability to ensure that machine learning models are reliable, fair, and can be held liable for their decision-making process. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are typically deployed to debug black-box machine learning models but in comparison to tabular, text, and image data, explainability in time series is still relatively unexplored. The aim of this study was to achieve and evaluate model agnostic explainability in a time series forecasting problem. This work focused on proving a solution for a digital consultancy company aiming to find a data-driven approach in order to understand the effect of their sales related activities on the sales deals closed. The solution involved framing the problem as a time series forecasting problem to predict the sales deals and the explainability was achieved using two novel model agnostic explainability techniques, Local explainable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) which were evaluated using human evaluation of explainability. The results clearly indicate that the explanations produced by LIME and SHAP greatly helped lay humans in understanding the predictions made by the machine learning model. The presented work can easily be extended to any time

Most of state of the art methods applied on time series consist of deep learning methods that are too complex to be interpreted. This lack of interpretability is a major drawback, as several applications in the real world are critical tasks, such as the medical field or the autonomous driving field. The explainability of models applied on time series has not gather much attention compared to the computer vision or the natural language processing fields. In this paper, we present an overview of existing explainable AI (XAI) methods applied on time series and illustrate the type of explanations they produce. We also provide a reflection on the impact of these explanation methods to provide confidence and trust in the AI systems.

The paper proposes a novel architecture for explainable AI based on semantic technologies and AI. We tailor the architecture for the domain of demand forecasting and validate it on a real-world case study. The provided explanations combine concepts describing features relevant to a particular forecast, related media events, and metadata regarding external datasets of interest. The knowledge graph provides concepts that convey feature information at a higher abstraction level. By using them, explanations do not expose sensitive details regarding the demand forecasting models. The explanations also emphasize actionable dimensions where suitable. We link domain knowledge, forecasted values, and forecast explanations in a Knowledge Graph. The ontology and dataset we developed for this use case are publicly available for further research.

Attention maps, a popular heatmap-based explanation method for Visual Question Answering (VQA), are supposed to help users understand the model by highlighting portions of the image/question used by the model to infer answers. However, we see that users are often misled by current attention map visualizations that point to relevant regions despite the model producing an incorrect answer. Hence, we propose Error Maps that clarify the error by highlighting image regions where the model is prone to err. Error maps can indicate when a correctly attended region may be processed incorrectly leading to an incorrect answer, and hence, improve users' understanding of those cases. To evaluate our new explanations, we further introduce a metric that simulates users' interpretation of explanations to evaluate their potential helpfulness to understand model correctness. We finally conduct user studies to see that our new explanations help users understand model correctness better than baselines by an expected 30% and that our proxy helpfulness metrics correlate strongly ($\rho$>0.97) with how well users can predict model correctness.

In automated planning, the need for explanations arises when there is a mismatch between a proposed plan and the user's expectation. We frame Explainable AI Planning in the context of the plan negotiation problem, in which a succession of hypothetical planning problems are generated and solved. The object of the negotiation is for the user to understand and ultimately arrive at a satisfactory plan. We present the results of a user study that demonstrates that when users ask questions about plans, those questions are contrastive, i.e. "why A rather than B?". We use the data from this study to construct a taxonomy of user questions that often arise during plan negotiation. We formally define our approach to plan negotiation through model restriction as an iterative process. This approach generates hypothetical problems and contrastive plans by restricting the model through constraints implied by user questions. We formally define model-based compilations in PDDL2.1 of each constraint derived from a user question in the taxonomy, and empirically evaluate the compilations in terms of computational complexity. The compilations were implemented as part of an explanation framework that employs iterative model restriction. We demonstrate its benefits in a second user study.

Software Quality Assurance (SQA) planning aims to define proactive plans, such as defining maximum file size, to prevent the occurrence of software defects in future releases. To aid this, defect prediction models have been proposed to generate insights as the most important factors that are associated with software quality. Such insights that are derived from traditional defect models are far from actionable-i.e., practitioners still do not know what they should do or avoid to decrease the risk of having defects, and what is the risk threshold for each metric. A lack of actionable guidance and risk threshold can lead to inefficient and ineffective SQA planning processes. In this paper, we investigate the practitioners' perceptions of current SQA planning activities, current challenges of such SQA planning activities, and propose four types of guidance to support SQA planning. We then propose and evaluate our AI-Driven SQAPlanner approach, a novel approach for generating four types of guidance and their associated risk thresholds in the form of rule-based explanations for the predictions of defect prediction models. Finally, we develop and evaluate an information visualization for our SQAPlanner approach. Through the use of qualitative survey and empirical evaluation, our results lead us to conclude that SQAPlanner is needed, effective, stable, and practically applicable. We also find that 80% of our survey respondents perceived that our visualization is more actionable. Thus, our SQAPlanner paves a way for novel research in actionable software analytics-i.e., generating actionable guidance on what should practitioners do and not do to decrease the risk of having defects to support SQA planning.