Persuasion is an important and yet complex aspect of human intelligence. When undertaken through dialogue, the deployment of good arguments, and therefore counterarguments, clearly has a significant effect on the ability to be successful in persuasion. Two key dimensions for determining whether an argument is good in a particular dialogue are the degree to which the intended audience believes the argument and counterarguments, and the impact that the argument has on the concerns of the intended audience. In this paper, we present a framework for modelling persuadees in terms of their beliefs and concerns, and for harnessing these models in optimizing the choice of move in persuasion dialogues. Our approach is based on the Monte Carlo Tree Search which allows optimization in real-time. We provide empirical results of a study with human participants showing that our automated persuasion system based on this technology is superior to a baseline system that does not take the beliefs and concerns into account in its strategy.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has in recent years become a well-suited framework to generate human understandable explanations of black box models. In this paper, we present a novel XAI visual explanation algorithm denoted SIDU that can effectively localize entire object regions responsible for prediction in a full extend. We analyze its robustness and effectiveness through various computational and human subject experiments. In particular, we assess the SIDU algorithm using three different types of evaluations (Application, Human and Functionally-Grounded) to demonstrate its superior performance. The robustness of SIDU is further studied in presence of adversarial attack on black box models to better understand its performance.

When engaging in argumentative discourse, skilled human debaters tailor claims to the beliefs of the audience, to construct effective arguments. Recently, the field of computational argumentation witnessed extensive effort to address the automatic generation of arguments. However, existing approaches do not perform any audience-specific adaptation. In this work, we aim to bridge this gap by studying the task of belief-based claim generation: Given a controversial topic and a set of beliefs, generate an argumentative claim tailored to the beliefs. To tackle this task, we model the people's prior beliefs through their stances on controversial topics and extend state-of-the-art text generation models to generate claims conditioned on the beliefs. Our automatic evaluation confirms the ability of our approach to adapt claims to a set of given beliefs. In a manual study, we additionally evaluate the generated claims in terms of informativeness and their likelihood to be uttered by someone with a respective belief. Our results reveal the limitations of modeling users' beliefs based on their stances, but demonstrate the potential of encoding beliefs into argumentative texts, laying the ground for future exploration of audience reach.

Recent applications of autonomous agents and robots, such as self-driving cars, scenario-based trainers, exploration robots, and service robots have brought attention to crucial trust-related challenges associated with the current generation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. AI systems based on the connectionist deep learning neural network approach lack capabilities of explaining their decisions and actions to others, despite their great successes. Without symbolic interpretation capabilities, they are black boxes, which renders their decisions or actions opaque, making it difficult to trust them in safety-critical applications. The recent stance on the explainability of AI systems has witnessed several approaches on eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI); however, most of the studies have focused on data-driven XAI systems applied in computational sciences. Studies addressing the increasingly pervasive goal-driven agents and robots are still missing. This paper reviews approaches on explainable goal-driven intelligent agents and robots, focusing on techniques for explaining and communicating agents perceptual functions (example, senses, and vision) and cognitive reasoning (example, beliefs, desires, intention, plans, and goals) with humans in the loop. The review highlights key strategies that emphasize transparency, understandability, and continual learning for explainability. Finally, the paper presents requirements for explainability and suggests a roadmap for the possible realization of effective goal-driven explainable agents and robots.

Expressive text encoders such as RNNs and Transformer Networks have been at the center of NLP models in recent work. Most of the effort has focused on sentence-level tasks, capturing the dependencies between words in a single sentence, or pairs of sentences. However, certain tasks, such as argumentation mining, require accounting for longer texts and complicated structural dependencies between them. Deep structured prediction is a general framework to combine the complementary strengths of expressive neural encoders and structured inference for highly structured domains. Nevertheless, when the need arises to go beyond sentences, most work relies on combining the output scores of independently trained classifiers. One of the main reasons for this is that constrained inference comes at a high computational cost. In this paper, we explore the use of randomized inference to alleviate this concern and show that we can efficiently leverage deep structured prediction and expressive neural encoders for a set of tasks involving complicated argumentative structures.

Feature attribution is widely used in interpretable machine learning to explain how influential each measured input feature value is for an output inference. However, measurements can be uncertain, and it is unclear how the awareness of input uncertainty can affect the trust in explanations. We propose and study two approaches to help users to manage their perception of uncertainty in a model explanation: 1) transparently show uncertainty in feature attributions to allow users to reflect on, and 2) suppress attribution to features with uncertain measurements and shift attribution to other features by regularizing with an uncertainty penalty. Through simulation experiments, qualitative interviews, and quantitative user evaluations, we identified the benefits of moderately suppressing attribution uncertainty, and concerns regarding showing attribution uncertainty. This work adds to the understanding of handling and communicating uncertainty for model interpretability.

Counterfactual explanations provide a potentially significant solution to the Explainable AI (XAI) problem, but good, native counterfactuals have been shown to rarely occur in most datasets. Hence, the most popular methods generate synthetic counterfactuals using blind perturbation. However, such methods have several shortcomings: the resulting counterfactuals (i) may not be valid data-points (they often use features that do not naturally occur), (ii) may lack the sparsity of good counterfactuals (if they modify too many features), and (iii) may lack diversity (if the generated counterfactuals are minimal variants of one another). We describe a method designed to overcome these problems, one that adapts native counterfactuals in the original dataset, to generate sparse, diverse synthetic counterfactuals from naturally occurring features. A series of experiments are reported that systematically explore parametric variations of this novel method on common datasets to establish the conditions for optimal performance.

Predictions obtained by, e.g., artificial neural networks have a high accuracy but humans often perceive the models as black boxes. Insights about the decision making are mostly opaque for humans. Particularly understanding the decision making in highly sensitive areas such as healthcare or finance, is of paramount importance. The decision-making behind the black boxes requires it to be more transparent, accountable, and understandable for humans. This survey paper provides essential definitions, an overview of the different principles and methodologies of explainable Supervised Machine Learning (SML). We conduct a state-of-the-art survey that reviews past and recent explainable SML approaches and classifies them according to the introduced definitions. Finally, we illustrate principles by means of an explanatory case study and discuss important future directions.

Although AI holds promise for improving human decision making in societally critical domains, it remains an open question how human-AI teams can reliably outperform AI alone and human alone in challenging prediction tasks (also known as complementary performance). We explore two directions to understand the gaps in achieving complementary performance. First, we argue that the typical experimental setup limits the potential of human-AI teams. To account for lower AI performance out-of-distribution than in-distribution because of distribution shift, we design experiments with different distribution types and investigate human performance for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution examples. Second, we develop novel interfaces to support interactive explanations so that humans can actively engage with AI assistance. Using in-person user study and large-scale randomized experiments across three tasks, we demonstrate a clear difference between in-distribution and out-of-distribution, and observe mixed results for interactive explanations: while interactive explanations improve human perception of AI assistance's usefulness, they may magnify human biases and lead to limited performance improvement. Overall, our work points out critical challenges and future directions towards complementary performance.

As AI-powered systems increasingly mediate consequential decision-making, their explainability is critical for end-users to take informed and accountable actions. Explanations in human-human interactions are socially-situated. AI systems are often socio-organizationally embedded. However, Explainable AI (XAI) approaches have been predominantly algorithm-centered. We take a developmental step towards socially-situated XAI by introducing and exploring Social Transparency (ST), a sociotechnically informed perspective that incorporates the socio-organizational context into explaining AI-mediated decision-making. To explore ST conceptually, we conducted interviews with 29 AI users and practitioners grounded in a speculative design scenario. We suggested constitutive design elements of ST and developed a conceptual framework to unpack ST's effect and implications at the technical, decision-making, and organizational level. The framework showcases how ST can potentially calibrate trust in AI, improve decision-making, facilitate organizational collective actions, and cultivate holistic explainability. Our work contributes to the discourse of Human-Centered XAI by expanding the design space of XAI.