This paper targets the automated extraction of components of argumentative information and their relations from natural language text. Moreover, we address a current lack of systems to provide complete argumentative structure from arbitrary natural language text for general usage. We present an argument mining pipeline as a universally applicable approach for transforming German and English language texts to graph-based argument representations. We also introduce new methods for evaluating the results based on existing benchmark argument structures. Our results show that the generated argument graphs can be beneficial to detect new connections between different statements of an argumentative text. Our pipeline implementation is publicly available on GitHub.

This has led to the development of a plethora of domain-dependent and context-specific methods for dealing with the interpretation of machine learning (ML) models and the formation of explanations for humans. Unfortunately, this trend is far from being over, with an abundance of knowledge in the field which is scattered and needs organisation. The goal of this article is to systematically review research works in the field of XAI and to try to define some boundaries in the field. From several hundreds of research articles focused on the concept of explainability, about 350 have been considered for review by using the following search methodology. In a first phase, Google Scholar was queried to find papers related to "explainable artificial intelligence", "explainable machine learning" and "interpretable machine learning". Subsequently, the bibliographic section of these articles was thoroughly examined to retrieve further relevant scientific studies. The first noticeable thing, as shown in figure 2 (a), is the distribution of the publication dates of selected research articles: sporadic in the 70s and 80s, receiving preliminary attention in the 90s, showing raising interest in 2000 and becoming a recognised body of knowledge after 2010. The first research concerned the development of an explanation-based system and its integration in a computer program designed to help doctors make diagnoses [3]. Some of the more recent papers focus on work devoted to the clustering of methods for explainability, motivating the need for organising the XAI literature [4, 5, 6].

The significant advances in autonomous systems together with an immensely wider application domain have increased the need for trustable intelligent systems. Explainable artificial intelligence is gaining considerable attention among researchers and developers to address this requirement. Although there is an increasing number of works on interpretable and transparent machine learning algorithms, they are mostly intended for the technical users. Explanations for the end-user have been neglected in many usable and practical applications. In this work, we present the Contextual Importance (CI) and Contextual Utility (CU) concepts to extract explanations that are easily understandable by experts as well as novice users. This method explains the prediction results without transforming the model into an interpretable one. We present an example of providing explanations for linear and non-linear models to demonstrate the generalizability of the method. CI and CU are numerical values that can be represented to the user in visuals and natural language form to justify actions and explain reasoning for individual instances, situations, and contexts. We show the utility of explanations in car selection example and Iris flower classification by presenting complete (i.e. the causes of an individual prediction) and contrastive explanation (i.e. contrasting instance against the instance of interest). The experimental results show the feasibility and validity of the provided explanation methods.

Explainable artificial intelligence (AI) is attracting much interest in medicine. Technically, the problem of explainability is as old as AI itself and classic AI represented comprehensible retraceable approaches. However, their weakness was in dealing with uncertainties of the real world. Through the introduction of probabilistic learning, applications became increasingly successful, but increasingly opaque. We argue that there is a need to go beyond explainable AI.

eXplainable AI focuses on generating explanations for the output of an AI algorithm to a user, usually a decision-maker. Such user needs to interpret the AI system in order to decide whether to trust the machine outcome. When addressing this challenge, therefore, proper attention should be given to produce explanations that are interpretable by the target community of users. In this chapter, we claim for the need to better investigate what constitutes a human explanation, i.e. a justification of the machine behaviour that is interpretable and actionable by the human decision makers. In particular, we focus on the contributions that Human Intelligence can bring to eXplainable AI, especially in conjunction with the exploitation of Knowledge Graphs. Indeed, we call for a better interplay between Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Social Sciences, Human Computation and Human-Machine Cooperation research -- as already explored in other AI branches -- in order to support the goal of eXplainable AI with the adoption of a Human-in-the-Loop approach.

Recently, a groundswell of research has identified the use of counterfactual explanations as a potentially significant solution to the Explainable AI (XAI) problem. It is argued that (a) technically, these counterfactual cases can be generated by permuting problem-features until a class change is found, (b) psychologically, they are much more causally informative than factual explanations, (c) legally, they are GDPR-compliant. However, there are issues around the finding of good counterfactuals using current techniques (e.g. sparsity and plausibility). We show that many commonly-used datasets appear to have few good counterfactuals for explanation purposes. So, we propose a new case based approach for generating counterfactuals using novel ideas about the counterfactual potential and explanatory coverage of a case-base. The new technique reuses patterns of good counterfactuals, present in a case-base, to generate analogous counterfactuals that can explain new problems and their solutions. Several experiments show how this technique can improve the counterfactual potential and explanatory coverage of case-bases that were previously found wanting.

AI has become a key part of our day-to-day lives and business operations. A report from Microsoft and EY that analysed the outlook for AI in 2019 and beyond, stated that "65% of organisations in Europe expect AI to have a high or a very high impact on the core business." In the banking and financial industries alone, the potential that AI has to improve the customer experience is vast. Important decisions are already made by AI on credit risk, wealth management and even financial crime risk assessments. Other applications include robo-advisory, intelligent pricing, product recommendation, investment services and debt-collection.

Explainable artificial intelligence (AI) is attracting much interest in medicine. Technically, the problem of explainability is as old as AI itself and classic AI represented comprehensible retraceable approaches. However, their weakness was in dealing with uncertainties of the real world. Through the introduction of probabilistic learning, applications became increasingly successful, but increasingly opaque. We argue that there is a need to go beyond explainable AI.

Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modelling nonmonotonic reasoning with conflicting information. In this paper we provide a proof-theoretic study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality postulates, we consider the conditions that an argumentation framework should fulfill for the desiderata to hold. The rationality behind this approach is to assist designers to ``plug-in'' pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs. This work extends related research on the subject in several ways: more postulates are characterized, a more abstract notion of arguments is considered, and it is shown how the nature of the attack rules (subset attacks versus direct attacks) affects the properties of the whole setting.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of domains such as security, finance, healthcare, medicine, and criminal justice. Explaining the decisions of AI systems in human terms is a key challenge—due to the high complexity of the model, as well as the potential implications on human interests, rights, and lives. While Explainable AI is an emerging field of research, there is no consensus on the definition, quantification, and formalization of explainability. In fact, the quantification of explainability is an open challenge. In our previous work, we incorporated domain knowledge for better explainability, however, we were unable to quantify the extent of explainability. In this work, we (1) briefly analyze the definitions of explainability from the perspective of different disciplines (e.g., psychology, social science), properties of explanation, explanation methods, and human-friendly explanations; and (2) propose and formulate an approach to quantify the extent of explainability. Our experimental result suggests a reasonable and model-agnostic way to quantify explainability.