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.

Explainable components in XAI algorithms often come from a familiar set of models, such as linear models or decision trees. We formulate an approach where the type of explanation produced is guided by a specification. Specifications are elicited from the user, possibly using interaction with the user and contributions from other areas. Areas where a specification could be obtained include forensic, medical, and scientific applications. Providing a menu of possible types of specifications in an area is an exploratory knowledge representation and reasoning task for the algorithm designer, aiming at understanding the possibilities and limitations of efficiently computable modes of explanations. Two examples are discussed: explanations for Bayesian networks using the theory of argumentation, and explanations for graph neural networks. The latter case illustrates the possibility of having a representation formalism available to the user for specifying the type of explanation requested, for example, a chemical query language for classifying molecules. The approach is motivated by a theory of explanation in the philosophy of science, and it is related to current questions in the philosophy of science on the role of machine learning.

Picture this: You're using an AI model when it recommends a course of action that doesn't seem to make sense. However, because the model can't explain itself, you've got no insight into the reasoning behind the recommendation. Your only options are to trust it or not -- but without any context. It's a frustrating yet familiar experience for many who work with artificial intelligence (AI) systems, which in many cases function as so-called "black boxes" that sometimes can't even be explained by their own creators. For some applications, black box-style AI systems are completely suitable (or even preferred by those who would rather not explain their proprietary AI).

Peer reviewing is a central process in modern research and essential for ensuring high quality and reliability of published work. At the same time, it is a time-consuming process and increasing interest in emerging fields often results in a high review workload, especially for senior researchers in this area. How to cope with this problem is an open question and it is vividly discussed across all major conferences. In this work, we propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. We demonstrate that the decision process in the field of scientific publications is driven by arguments and automatic argument identification is helpful in various use-cases. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. Therefore, we provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments. In our extensive empirical evaluation, we show that Argument Mining can be used to efficiently extract the most relevant parts from reviews, which are paramount for the publication decision. The process remains interpretable since the extracted arguments can be highlighted in a review without detaching them from their context.