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.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. However, the notion of strongly admissible semantics studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has not yet been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we present the concept of strong admissibility of interpretations for ADFs. Further, we show that strongly admissible interpretations of ADFs form a lattice with the grounded interpretation as top element.

Despite the rapid growth in attention on eXplainable AI (XAI) of late, explanations in the literature provide little insight into the actual functioning of Neural Networks (NNs), significantly limiting their transparency. We propose a methodology for explaining NNs, providing transparency about their inner workings, by utilising computational argumentation (a form of symbolic AI offering reasoning abstractions for a variety of settings where opinions matter) as the scaffolding underpinning Deep Argumentative eXplanations (DAXs). We define three DAX instantiations (for various neural architectures and tasks) and evaluate them empirically in terms of stability, computational cost, and importance of depth. We also conduct human experiments with DAXs for text classification models, indicating that they are comprehensible to humans and align with their judgement, while also being competitive, in terms of user acceptance, with existing approaches to XAI that also have an argumentative spirit.

We show that an interesting class of feed-forward neural networks can be understood as quantitative argumentation frameworks. This connection creates a bridge between research in Formal Argumentation and Machine Learning. We generalize the semantics of feed-forward neural networks to acyclic graphs and study the resulting computational and semantical properties in argumentation graphs. As it turns out, the semantics gives stronger guarantees than existing semantics that have been tailor-made for the argumentation setting. From a machine-learning perspective, the connection does not seem immediately helpful. While it gives intuitive meaning to some feed-forward-neural networks, they remain difficult to understand due to their size and density. However, the connection seems helpful for combining background knowledge in form of sparse argumentation networks with dense neural networks that have been trained for complementary purposes and for learning the parameters of quantitative argumentation frameworks in an end-to-end fashion from data.

We consider functional data which are measured on a discrete set of observation points. Often such data are measured with noise, and then the target is to recover the underlying signal. Most commonly, practitioners use some smoothing approach, e.g.,\ kernel smoothing or spline fitting towards this goal. The drawback of such curve fitting techniques is that they act function by function, and don't take into account information from the entire sample. In this paper we argue that signal and noise can be naturally represented as the common and idiosyncratic component, respectively, of a factor model. Accordingly, we propose to an estimation scheme which is based on factor models. The purpose of this paper is to explain the reasoning behind our approach and to compare its performance on simulated and on real data to competing methods.

Banks and other financial firms are investing in "explainable" artificial intelligence that lets auditors and analysts trace how decisions about loans and other services are made by financial technologies, experts say. The increasing use of software with AI capabilities such as machine learning and data mining has automated banking operations, increasing efficiency and providing more services. But privacy and civil liberties groups contend that has come at a cost, with bias in the AI systems' algorithms leading to discrimination in the form of loans or other services denied based on sex or ethnicity. This perception of algorithmic bias is a big problem for banks, which are investing in technical solutions to solve the problem, Moutusi Sau, an analyst at research and advisory company Gartner Inc., told CQ Roll Call. That issue is known as the black box problem with AI systems: software decision-making processes that often are opaque to humans, making it difficult or impossible to determine how a decision was made.

Predictive process analytics focuses on predicting the future states of running instances of a business process. While advanced machine learning techniques have been used to increase accuracy of predictions, the resulting predictive models lack transparency. Current explainable machine learning methods, such as LIME and SHAP, can be used to interpret black box models. However, it is unclear how fit for purpose these methods are in explaining process predictive models. In this paper, we draw on evaluation measures used in the field of explainable AI and propose functionally-grounded evaluation metrics for assessing explainable methods in predictive process analytics. We apply the proposed metrics to evaluate the performance of LIME and SHAP in interpreting process predictive models built on XGBoost, which has been shown to be relatively accurate in process predictions. We conduct the evaluation using three open source, real-world event logs and analyse the evaluation results to derive insights. The research contributes to understanding the trustworthiness of explainable methods for predictive process analytics as a fundamental and key step towards human user-oriented evaluation.

There is a need for socially assistive robots (SARs) to provide transparency in their behavior by explaining their reasoning. Additionally, the reasoning and explanation should represent the user's preferences and goals. To work towards satisfying this need for interpretable reasoning and representations, we propose the robot uses Analogical Theory of Mind to infer what the user is trying to do and uses the Hint Engine to find an appropriate assistance based on what the user is trying to do. If the user is unsure or confused, the robot provides the user with an explanation, generated by the Explanation Synthesizer. The explanation helps the user understand what the robot inferred about the user's preferences and why the robot decided to provide the assistance it gave. A knowledge-driven approach provides transparency to reasoning about preferences, assistance, and explanations, thereby facilitating the incorporation of user feedback and allowing the robot to learn and adapt to the user.