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.

There has been a recent resurgence of interest in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) that aims to reduce the opaqueness of AI-based decision-making systems, allowing humans to scrutinize and trust them. Prior work in this context has focused on the attribution of responsibility for an algorithm's decisions to its inputs wherein responsibility is typically approached as a purely associational concept. In this paper, we propose a principled causality-based approach for explaining black-box decision-making systems that addresses limitations of existing methods in XAI. At the core of our framework lies probabilistic contrastive counterfactuals, a concept that can be traced back to philosophical, cognitive, and social foundations of theories on how humans generate and select explanations. We show how such counterfactuals can quantify the direct and indirect influences of a variable on decisions made by an algorithm, and provide actionable recourse for individuals negatively affected by the algorithm's decision.

These are heady days in data science and machine learning (DSML) according to Gartner, which identified a "glut" of innovation occurring in the market for DSML platforms. From established companies chasing AutoML or model governance to startups focusing on MLops or explainable AI, a plethora of vendors are simultaneously moving in all directions with their products as they seek to differentiate themselves amid a very diverse audience. "The DSML market is simultaneously more vibrant and messier than ever," a gaggle of Gartner analysts led by Peter Krensky wrote in the Magic Quadrant for DSML Platforms, which was published earlier this month. "The definitions and parameters of data science and data scientists continue to evolve, and the market is dramatically different from how it was in 2014, when we published the first Magic Quadrant on it." The 2021 Magic Quadrant for DSML is heavily represented by companies to the right of the axis, which anybody who's familiar with Gartner's quadrant-based assessment method knows represents the "completeness of vision."

Explainable AI (XAI) principles are a set of guidelines for the fundamental properties that explainable AI systems should adopt. Explainable AI seeks to explain the way that AI systems work. These four principles capture a variety of disciplines that contribute to explainable AI, including computer science, engineering and psychology. The four explainable AI principles apply individually, so the presence of one does not imply that others will be present. The NIST suggests that each principle should be evaluated in its own right.

There has been a recent resurgence of interest in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) that aims to reduce the opaqueness of AI-based decision-making systems, allowing humans to scrutinize and trust them. Prior work in this context has focused on the attribution of responsibility for an algorithm's decisions to its inputs wherein responsibility is typically approached as a purely associational concept. In this paper, we propose a principled causality-based approach for explaining black-box decision-making systems that addresses limitations of existing methods in XAI. At the core of our framework lies probabilistic contrastive counterfactuals, a concept that can be traced back to philosophical, cognitive, and social foundations of theories on how humans generate and select explanations. We show how such counterfactuals can quantify the direct and indirect influences of a variable on decisions made by an algorithm, and provide actionable recourse for individuals negatively affected by the algorithm's decision. Unlike prior work, our system, LEWIS: (1)can compute provably effective explanations and recourse at local, global and contextual levels (2)is designed to work with users with varying levels of background knowledge of the underlying causal model and (3)makes no assumptions about the internals of an algorithmic system except for the availability of its input-output data. We empirically evaluate LEWIS on three real-world datasets and show that it generates human-understandable explanations that improve upon state-of-the-art approaches in XAI, including the popular LIME and SHAP. Experiments on synthetic data further demonstrate the correctness of LEWIS's explanations and the scalability of its recourse algorithm.

Machine Learning (ML) seems to be one of the most promising solution to automate partially or completely some of the complex tasks currently realized by humans, such as driving vehicles, recognizing voice, etc. It is also an opportunity to implement and embed new capabilities out of the reach of classical implementation techniques. However, ML techniques introduce new potential risks. Therefore, they have only been applied in systems where their benefits are considered worth the increase of risk. In practice, ML techniques raise multiple challenges that could prevent their use in systems submitted to certification constraints. But what are the actual challenges? Can they be overcome by selecting appropriate ML techniques, or by adopting new engineering or certification practices? These are some of the questions addressed by the ML Certification 3 Workgroup (WG) set-up by the Institut de Recherche Technologique Saint Exup\'ery de Toulouse (IRT), as part of the DEEL Project.

As transparency becomes key for robotics and AI, it will be necessary to evaluate the methods through which transparency is provided, including automatically generated natural language (NL) explanations. Here, we explore parallels between the generation of such explanations and the much-studied field of evaluation of Natural Language Generation (NLG). Specifically, we investigate which of the NLG evaluation measures map well to explanations. We present the ExBAN corpus: a crowd-sourced corpus of NL explanations for Bayesian Networks. We run correlations comparing human subjective ratings with NLG automatic measures. We find that embedding-based automatic NLG evaluation methods, such as BERTScore and BLEURT, have a higher correlation with human ratings, compared to word-overlap metrics, such as BLEU and ROUGE. This work has implications for Explainable AI and transparent robotic and autonomous systems.

The automotive industry is seen to have witnessed an increasing level of development in the past decades; from manufacturing manually operated vehicles to manufacturing vehicles with high level of automation. With the recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI), automotive companies now employ high performance AI models to enable vehicles to perceive their environment and make driving decisions with little or no influence from a human. With the hope to deploy autonomous vehicles (AV) on a commercial scale, the acceptance of AV by society becomes paramount and may largely depend on their degree of transparency, trustworthiness, and compliance to regulations. The assessment of these acceptance requirements can be facilitated through the provision of explanations for AVs' behaviour. Explainability is therefore seen as an important requirement for AVs. AVs should be able to explain what they have 'seen', done and might do in environments where they operate. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of the existing work in explainable autonomous driving. First, we open by providing a motivation for explanations and examining existing standards related to AVs. Second, we identify and categorise the different stakeholders involved in the development, use, and regulation of AVs and show their perceived need for explanation. Third, we provide a taxonomy of explanations and reviewed previous work on explanation in the different AV operations. Finally, we draw a close by pointing out pertinent challenges and future research directions. This survey serves to provide fundamental knowledge required of researchers who are interested in explanation in autonomous driving.