By considering rational agents, we focus on the problem of selecting goals out of a set of incompatible ones. We consider three forms of incompatibility introduced by Castelfranchi and Paglieri, namely the terminal, the instrumental (or based on resources), and the superfluity. We represent the agent's plans by means of structured arguments whose premises are pervaded with uncertainty. We measure the strength of these arguments in order to determine the set of compatible goals. We propose two novel ways for calculating the strength of these arguments, depending on the kind of incompatibility that exists between them. The first one is the logical strength value, it is denoted by a three-dimensional vector, which is calculated from a probabilistic interval associated with each argument. The vector represents the precision of the interval, the location of it, and the combination of precision and location. This type of representation and treatment of the strength of a structured argument has not been defined before by the state of the art. The second way for calculating the strength of the argument is based on the cost of the plans (regarding the necessary resources) and the preference of the goals associated with the plans. Considering our novel approach for measuring the strength of structured arguments, we propose a semantics for the selection of plans and goals that is based on Dung's abstract argumentation theory. Finally, we make a theoretical evaluation of our proposal.

Predictive Business Process Monitoring is becoming an essential aid for organizations, providing online operational support of their processes. This paper tackles the fundamental problem of equipping predictive business process monitoring with explanation capabilities, so that not only the what but also the why is reported when predicting generic KPIs like remaining time, or activity execution. We use the game theory of Shapley Values to obtain robust explanations of the predictions. The approach has been implemented and tested on real-life benchmarks, showing for the first time how explanations can be given in the field of predictive business process monitoring.

Some abstract argumentation approaches consider that arguments have a degree of uncertainty, which impacts on the degree of uncertainty of the extensions obtained from a abstract argumentation framework (AAF) under a semantics. In these approaches, both the uncertainty of the arguments and of the extensions are modeled by means of precise probability values. However, in many real life situations the exact probabilities values are unknown and sometimes there is a need for aggregating the probability values of different sources. In this paper, we tackle the problem of calculating the degree of uncertainty of the extensions considering that the probability values of the arguments are imprecise. We use credal sets to model the uncertainty values of arguments and from these credal sets, we calculate the lower and upper bounds of the extensions. We study some properties of the suggested approach and illustrate it with an scenario of decision making.

During the first step of practical reasoning, i.e. deliberation or goals selection, an intelligent agent generates a set of pursuable goals and then selects which of them he commits to achieve. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) systems, including intelligent agents, must be able to explain their internal decisions. In the context of goals selection, agents should be able to explain the reasoning path that leads them to select (or not) a certain goal. In this article, we use an argumentation-based approach for generating explanations about that reasoning path. Besides, we aim to enrich the explanations with information about emerging conflicts during the selection process and how such conflicts were resolved. We propose two types of explanations: the partial one and the complete one and a set of explanatory schemes to generate pseudo-natural explanations. Finally, we apply our proposal to the cleaner world scenario.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) systems, including intelligent agents, must be able to explain their internal decisions, behaviours and reasoning that produce their choices to the humans (or other systems) with which they interact. In this paper, we focus on how an extended model of BDI (Beliefs-Desires-Intentions) agents can be able to generate explanations about their reasoning, specifically, about the goals he decides to commit to. Our proposal is based on argumentation theory, we use arguments to represent the reasons that lead an agent to make a decision and use argumentation semantics to determine acceptable arguments (reasons). We propose two types of explanations: the partial one and the complete one. We apply our proposal to a scenario of rescue robots.

Applying automated reasoning tools for decision support and analysis in law has the potential to make court decisions more transparent and objective. Since there is often uncertainty about the accuracy and relevance of evidence, non-classical reasoning approaches are required. Here, we investigate probabilistic epistemic argumentation as a tool for automated reasoning about legal cases. We introduce a general scheme to model legal cases as probabilistic epistemic argumentation problems, explain how evidence can be modeled and sketch how explanations for legal decisions can be generated automatically. Our framework is easily interpretable, can deal with cyclic structures and imprecise probabilities and guarantees polynomial-time probabilistic reasoning in the worst-case.

The contemporary process-aware information systems possess the capabilities to record the activities generated during the process execution. To leverage these process specific fine-granular data, process mining has recently emerged as a promising research discipline. As an important branch of process mining, predictive business process management, pursues the objective to generate forward-looking, predictive insights to shape business processes. In this study, we propose a conceptual framework sought to establish and promote understanding of decision-making environment, underlying business processes and nature of the user characteristics for developing explainable business process prediction solutions. Consequently, with regard to the theoretical and practical implications of the framework, this study proposes a novel local post-hoc explanation approach for a deep learning classifier that is expected to facilitate the domain experts in justifying the model decisions. In contrary to alternative popular perturbation-based local explanation approaches, this study defines the local regions from the validation dataset by using the intermediate latent space representations learned by the deep neural networks. To validate the applicability of the proposed explanation method, the real-life process log data delivered by the Volvo IT Belgium's incident management system are used. The adopted deep learning classifier achieves a good performance with the Area Under the ROC Curve of 0.94. The generated local explanations are also visualized and presented with relevant evaluation measures that are expected to increase the users' trust in the black-box-model.

Legal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of justice, underpinning an adversarial form of law, and extensive research has attempted to augment or undertake legal argumentation via the use of computer-based automation including Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) have especially furthered the capabilities of leveraging AI for aiding legal professionals, doing so in ways that are modeled here as CARE, namely Crafting, Assessing, Refining, and Engaging in legal argumentation. In addition to AI-enabled legal argumentation serving to augment human-based lawyering, an aspirational goal of this multi-disciplinary field consists of ultimately achieving autonomously effected human-equivalent legal argumentation. As such, an innovative meta-approach is proposed to apply the Levels of Autonomy (LoA) of AI Legal Reasoning (AILR) to the maturation of AI and Legal Argumentation (AILA), proffering a new means of gauging progress in this ever-evolving and rigorously sought domain.

It is well known that adversarial examples and counterfactual explanations are based on the same mathematical model. However, their relationship has not yet been studied at a conceptual level. The present paper fills this gap. We show that counterfactual reasoning is the common basis of the fields and reliable machine learning their shared goal. Moreover, we illustrate to what extent counterfactual explanations can be regarded as the more general concept than adversarial examples. We introduce the conceptual distinction between feasible and contesting counterfactual explanations and argue that adversarial examples are similar to the latter.

There is a growing concern that the recent progress made in AI, especially regarding the predictive competence of deep learning models, will be undermined by a failure to properly explain their operation and outputs. In response to this disquiet counterfactual explanations have become massively popular in eXplainable AI (XAI) due to their proposed computational psychological, and legal benefits. In contrast however, semifactuals, which are a similar way humans commonly explain their reasoning, have surprisingly received no attention. Most counterfactual methods address tabular rather than image data, partly due to the nondiscrete nature of the latter making good counterfactuals difficult to define. Additionally generating plausible looking explanations which lie on the data manifold is another issue which hampers progress. This paper advances a novel method for generating plausible counterfactuals (and semifactuals) for black box CNN classifiers doing computer vision. The present method, called PlausIble Exceptionality-based Contrastive Explanations (PIECE), modifies all exceptional features in a test image to be normal from the perspective of the counterfactual class (hence concretely defining a counterfactual). Two controlled experiments compare this method to others in the literature, showing that PIECE not only generates the most plausible counterfactuals on several measures, but also the best semifactuals.