Once COVID-19 vaccines are available to children, Los Angeles students will have to be immunized before they can return to campus, Supt. He did not, however, suggest that campuses remain closed until the vaccines are available. Instead, he said, the state should set the standards for reopening schools, explain the reasoning behind the standards, and then require campuses to open when these standards are achieved. A COVID-19 vaccine requirement would be "no different than students who are vaccinated for measles or mumps," Beutner said in a pre-recorded briefing. He also compared students, staff and others getting a COVID-19 vaccine to those who "are tested for tuberculosis before they come on campus. That's the best way we know to keep all on a campus safe."

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being increasingly deployed in practical applications. However, there is a major concern whether AI systems will be trusted by humans. In order to establish trust in AI systems, there is a need for users to understand the reasoning behind their solutions. Therefore, systems should be able to explain and justify their output. In this paper, we propose an argument scheme-based approach to provide explanations in the domain of AI planning. We present novel argument schemes to create arguments that explain a plan and its key elements; and a set of critical questions that allow interaction between the arguments and enable the user to obtain further information regarding the key elements of the plan. Furthermore, we present a novel dialogue system using the argument schemes and critical questions for providing interactive dialectical explanations.

Machine learning is becoming a commonplace part of our technological experience. The notion of explainable AI (XAI) is attractive when regulatory or usability considerations necessitate the ability to back decisions with a coherent explanation. A large body of research has addressed algorithmic methods of XAI, but it is still unclear how to determine what is best suited to create human cooperation and adoption of automatic systems. Here we develop an experimental methodology where participants play a web-based game, during which they receive advice from either a human or algorithmic advisor, accompanied with explanations that vary in nature between experimental conditions. We use a reference-dependent decision-making framework, evaluate the game results over time, and in various key situations, to determine whether the different types of explanations affect the readiness to adopt, willingness to pay and trust a financial AI consultant. We find that the types of explanations that promotes adoption during first encounter differ from those that are most successful following failure or when cost is involved. Furthermore, participants are willing to pay more for AI-advice that includes explanations. These results add to the literature on the importance of XAI for algorithmic adoption and trust.

With the growing capabilities of intelligent systems, the integration of robots in our everyday life is increasing. However, when interacting in such complex human environments, the occasional failure of robotic systems is inevitable. The field of explainable AI has sought to make complex-decision making systems more interpretable but most existing techniques target domain experts. On the contrary, in many failure cases, robots will require recovery assistance from non-expert users. In this work, we introduce a new type of explanation, that explains the cause of an unexpected failure during an agent's plan execution to non-experts. In order for error explanations to be meaningful, we investigate what types of information within a set of hand-scripted explanations are most helpful to non-experts for failure and solution identification. Additionally, we investigate how such explanations can be autonomously generated, extending an existing encoder-decoder model, and generalized across environments. We investigate such questions in the context of a robot performing a pick-and-place manipulation task in the home environment. Our results show that explanations capturing the context of a failure and history of past actions, are the most effective for failure and solution identification among non-experts. Furthermore, through a second user evaluation, we verify that our model-generated explanations can generalize to an unseen office environment, and are just as effective as the hand-scripted explanations.

Based on Grossi and Modgil's recent work [1], this paper considers some issues on extension-based semantics for abstract argumentation framework (AAF, for short). First, an alternative fundamental lemma is given, which generalizes the corresponding result obtained in [1]. This lemma plays a central role in constructing some special extensions in terms of iterations of the defense function. Applying this lemma, some flaws in [1] are corrected and a number of structural properties of various extensionbased semantics are given. Second, the operator so-called reduced meet modulo an ultrafilter is presented. A number of fundamental semantics for AAF, including conflictfree, admissible, complete and stable semantics, are shown to be closed under this operator. Based on this fact, we provide a concise and uniform proof method to establish the universal definability of a family of range related semantics. Thirdly, using model-theoretical tools, we characterize the class of extension-based semantics that is closed under reduced meet modulo any ultrafilter, which brings us a metatheorem concerning the universal definability of range related semantics. Finally, in addition to range related semantics, some graded variants of traditional semantics of AAF are also considered in this paper, e.g., ideal semantics, eager semantics, etc. Keywords: Abstract argumentation framework, Graded extension-based semantics, Range related semantics, Universal definability.

There is an increasing interest in the entwining of the field of antitrust with the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), frequently referred to jointly as Antitrust and AI (AAI) in the research literature. This study focuses on the synergies entangling antitrust and AI, doing so to extend the literature by proffering the primary ways that these two fields intersect, consisting of: (1) the application of antitrust to AI, and (2) the application of AI to antitrust. To date, most of the existing research on this intermixing has concentrated on the former, namely the application of antitrust to AI, entailing how the marketplace will be altered by the advent of AI and the potential for adverse antitrust behaviors arising accordingly. Opting to explore more deeply the other side of this coin, this research closely examines the application of AI to antitrust and establishes an antitrust vigilance lifecycle to which AI is predicted to be substantively infused for purposes of enabling and bolstering antitrust detection, enforcement, and post-enforcement monitoring. Furthermore, a gradual and incremental injection of AI into antitrust vigilance is anticipated to occur as significant advances emerge amidst the Levels of Autonomy (LoA) for AI Legal Reasoning (AILR).

The notion of stability in a structured argumentation setup characterizes situations where the acceptance status associated with a given literal will not be impacted by any future evolution of this setup. In this paper, we abstract away from the logical structure of arguments, and we transpose this notion of stability to the context of Dungean argumentation frameworks. In particular, we show how this problem can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. Then we provide preliminary complexity results for stability under four prominent semantics, in the case of both credulous and skeptical reasoning. Finally, we illustrate to what extent this notion can be useful with an application to argument-based negotiation.

Systems used here must provide comprehensible and transparent information about their decisions. Especially for patients, who are mostly no healthcare experts, comprehensible information is extremely important to understand diagnoses and treatment options (e.g., [2, 3]). To support more transparent Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications, approaches for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) are an ongoing topic of high interest [4]. Especially in the field of computer vision, a common strategy to achieve this kind of transparency is the creation of saliency maps that highlight areas in the input that were important for the decision of the AI system. The problem with those explanation strategies is, that they require the user of the XAI system to perform an additional thought process: Having the information what areas were important for a certain decision inevitably leads to the question why these areas were of importance. Especially in scenarios where relevant differences in the input data are originating from textural information rather than spatial information of certain objects, it becomes clear that the raw information about where important areas are is not always sufficient. One XAI approach that goes another way to avoid the aforementioned problems, are Counterfactual Explanations. Counterfactual explanations try to help to understand why the actual decision was made instead of another one, by creating a slightly modified version of the input which results in another decision of the AI [5, 6]. Creating such a slightly modified input that changes the model's prediction is by no means a trivial task.

Post-hoc explanation methods for machine learning models have been widely used to support decision-making. One of the popular methods is Counterfactual Explanation (CE), which provides a user with a perturbation vector of features that alters the prediction result. Given a perturbation vector, a user can interpret it as an "action" for obtaining one's desired decision result. In practice, however, showing only a perturbation vector is often insufficient for users to execute the action. The reason is that if there is an asymmetric interaction among features, such as causality, the total cost of the action is expected to depend on the order of changing features. Therefore, practical CE methods are required to provide an appropriate order of changing features in addition to a perturbation vector. For this purpose, we propose a new framework called Ordered Counterfactual Explanation (OrdCE). We introduce a new objective function that evaluates a pair of an action and an order based on feature interaction. To extract an optimal pair, we propose a mixed-integer linear optimization approach with our objective function. Numerical experiments on real datasets demonstrated the effectiveness of our OrdCE in comparison with unordered CE methods.

In this work, we report the practical and theoretical aspects of Explainable AI (XAI) identified in some fundamental literature. Although there is a vast body of work on representing the XAI backgrounds, most of the corpuses pinpoint a discrete direction of thoughts. Providing insights into literature in practice and theory concurrently is still a gap in this field. This is important as such connection facilitates a learning process for the early stage XAI researchers and give a bright stand for the experienced XAI scholars. Respectively, we first focus on the categories of black-box explanation and give a practical example. Later, we discuss how theoretically explanation has been grounded in the body of multidisciplinary fields. Finally, some directions of future works are presented.