Human collaborators can effectively communicate with their partners to finish a common task by inferring each other's mental states (e.g., goals, beliefs, and desires). Such mind-aware communication minimizes the discrepancy among collaborators' mental states, and is crucial to the success in human ad-hoc teaming. We believe that robots collaborating with human users should demonstrate similar pedagogic behavior. Thus, in this paper, we propose a novel explainable AI (XAI) framework for achieving human-like communication in human-robot collaborations, where the robot builds a hierarchical mind model of the human user and generates explanations of its own mind as a form of communications based on its online Bayesian inference of the user's mental state. To evaluate our framework, we conduct a user study on a real-time human-robot cooking task. Experimental results show that the generated explanations of our approach significantly improves the collaboration performance and user perception of the robot. Code and video demos are available on our project website: https://xfgao.github.io/xCookingWeb/.

Prospective candidates are expected to have strong (distinction) Masters in computer science, mathematics, statistics or related disciplines. During their PhD journey, students will have an opportunity to undertake a variety of training activities including interdisciplinary training on responsible research, public engagement, developing an entrepreneurial mindset, in addition to regular seminars and workshops held at Warwick. We encourage applications from candidates with non-standard backgrounds (e.g.

Labelling-based formal argumentation relies on labelling functions that typically assign one of 3 labels to indicate either acceptance, rejection, or else undecided-to-be-either, to each argument. While a classical labelling-based approach applies globally uniform conditions as to how an argument is to be labelled, they can be determined more locally per argument. Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADF) is a well-known argumentation formalism that belongs to this category, offering a greater labelling flexibility. As the size of an argumentation increases in the numbers of arguments and argument-to-argument relations, however, it becomes increasingly more costly to check whether a labelling function satisfies those local conditions or even whether the conditions are as per the intention of those who had specified them. Some compromise is thus required for reasoning about a larger argumentation. In this context, there is a more recently proposed formalism of may-must argumentation (MMA) that enforces still local but more abstract labelling conditions. We identify how they link to each other in this work. We prove that there is a Galois connection between them, in which ADF is a concretisation of MMA and MMA is an abstraction of ADF. We explore the consequence of abstract interpretation at play in formal argumentation, demonstrating a sound reasoning about the judgement of acceptability/rejectability in ADF from within MMA. As far as we are aware, there is seldom any work that incorporates abstract interpretation into formal argumentation in the literature, and, in the stated context, this work is the first to demonstrate its use and relevance.

In this paper, we present a learning-based approach to determining acceptance of arguments under several abstract argumentation semantics. More specifically, we propose an argumentation graph neural network (AGNN) that learns a message-passing algorithm to predict the likelihood of an argument being accepted. The experimental results demonstrate that the AGNN can almost perfectly predict the acceptability under different semantics and scales well for larger argumentation frameworks. Furthermore, analysing the behaviour of the message-passing algorithm shows that the AGNN learns to adhere to basic principles of argument semantics as identified in the literature, and can thus be trained to predict extensions under the different semantics - we show how the latter can be done for multi-extension semantics by using AGNNs to guide a basic search. We publish our code at https://github.com/DennisCraandijk/DL-Abstract-Argumentation

As machine learning is increasingly deployed in high-stakes contexts affecting people's livelihoods, there have been growing calls to open the black box and to make machine learning algorithms more explainable. Providing useful explanations requires careful consideration of the needs of stakeholders, including end-users, regulators, and domain experts. Despite this need, little work has been done to facilitate inter-stakeholder conversation around explainable machine learning. To help address this gap, we conducted a closed-door, day-long workshop between academics, industry experts, legal scholars, and policymakers to develop a shared language around explainability and to understand the current shortcomings of and potential solutions for deploying explainable machine learning in service of transparency goals. We also asked participants to share case studies in deploying explainable machine learning at scale. In this paper, we provide a short summary of various case studies of explainable machine learning, lessons from those studies, and discuss open challenges.

In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. Two ways of formalizing rebuttal have been proposed: In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule, whereas in unrestricted rebuttal, it may have been arrived at with a strict rule, as long as at least one of the antecedents of this strict rule was already defeasible. One systematic way of choosing between various possible definitions of a framework for structured argumentation is to study what rationality postulates are satisfied by which definition, for example whether the closure postulate holds, i.e. whether the accepted conclusions are closed under strict rules. While having some benefits, the proposal to use unrestricted rebuttal faces the problem that the closure postulate only holds for the grounded semantics but fails when other argumentation semantics are applied, whereas with restricted rebuttal the closure postulate always holds. In this paper we propose that ASPIC-style argumentation can benefit from keeping track not only of the attack relation between arguments, but also the relation of deductive joint support that holds between a set of arguments and an argument that was constructed from that set using a strict rule. By taking this deductive joint support relation into account while determining the extensions, the closure postulate holds with unrestricted rebuttal under all admissibility-based semantics. We define the semantics of deductive joint support through the flattening method.

Formal argumentation theory [4] is nonmonotonic in the sense that when new arguments are added, some arguments may change their status. In this rapport, we show that preferred, stable, complete and grounded semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity. This means that if an attack from b to a is removed, the status of a cannot worsen, e.g. if a was skeptically accepted, it cannot become rejected. Note that result we prove in the present document is the proof of Proposition 1 and Conjecture 1 of the recent paper by Amgoud et al. [2].

Generalizing the attack structure in argumentation frameworks (AFs) has been studied in different ways. Most prominently, the binary attack relation of Dung frameworks has been extended to the notion of collective attacks. The resulting formalism is often termed SETAFs. Another approach is provided via abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), where acceptance conditions specify the relation between arguments; restricting these conditions naturally allows for so-called support-free ADFs. The aim of the paper is to shed light on the relation between these two different approaches. To this end, we investigate and compare the expressiveness of SETAFs and support-free ADFs under the lens of 3-valued semantics. Our results show that it is only the presence of unsatisfiable acceptance conditions in support-free ADFs that discriminate the two approaches.

THuMP is a multi-disciplinary project, with the ambitious goal of advancing the state-of-the-art in trustworthy human-AI decision-support systems. ThUMP will address the technical challenges involved in creating explainable AI (XAI) systems, with a focus on Visualization for Explainable Planning and Argumentation, so that people using the system can better understand the rationale behind and trust suggestions made by an AI system. This project is conducted in collaboration with three project partners: Schlumberger and Save the Children, which provide use cases for the project, and a law firm whowill cooperate in considering legal implications of enhancing machines with transparency and the ability to explain. The candidate will be responsible for conducting research around the interfaces required to support explainability in the context of decision making in human-machine partnerships. Tasks will involve designing new visual layouts, building the interaction infrastructure for the project, developing a prototype interface for communicating with users, designing and conducting experiments with human subjects based on the use cases that will be co-created with the project partners.

Explainability is one of the key elements for building trust in AI systems. Among numerous attempts to make AI explainable, quantifying the effect of explanations remains a challenge in conducting human-AI collaborative tasks. Aside from the ability to predict the overall behavior of AI, in many applications, users need to understand an AI agent's competency in different aspects of the task domain. In this paper, we evaluate the impact of explanations on the user's mental model of AI agent competency within the task of visual question answering (VQA). We quantify users' understanding of competency, based on the correlation between the actual system performance and user rankings. We introduce an explainable VQA system that uses spatial and object features and is powered by the BERT language model. Each group of users sees only one kind of explanation to rank the competencies of the VQA model. The proposed model is evaluated through between-subject experiments to probe explanations' impact on the user's perception of competency. The comparison between two VQA models shows BERT based explanations and the use of object features improve the user's prediction of the model's competencies.