F-systems are digraphs that enable to model sentences that predicate the falsity of other sentences. Paradoxes like the Liar and Yablo's can be analyzed with that tool to find graph-theoretic patterns. In this paper we present the F-systems model abstracting from all the features of the language in which the represented sentences are expressed. All that is assumed is the existence of sentences and the binary relation '... affirms the falsity of ...' among them. The possible existence of non-referential sentences is also considered. To model the sets of all the sentences that can jointly be valued as true we introduce the notion of conglomerate, the existence of which guarantees the absence of paradox. Conglomerates also enable to characterize referential contradictions, i.e. sentences that can only be false under a classical valuation due to the interactions with other sentences in the model. A Kripke's style fixed point characterization of groundedness is offered and fixed points which are complete (meaning that every sentence is deemed either true or false) and consistent (meaning that no sentence is deemed true and false) are put in correspondence with conglomerates. Furthermore, argumentation frameworks are special cases of F-systems. We show the relation between local conglomerates and admissible sets of arguments and argue about the usefulness of the concept for argumentation theory.

Various structured argumentation frameworks utilize preferences as part of their standard inference procedure to enable reasoning with preferences. In this paper, we consider an inverse of the standard reasoning problem, seeking to identify what preferences over assumptions could lead to a given set of conclusions being drawn. We ground our work in the Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) framework, and present an algorithm which computes and enumerates all possible sets of preferences over the assumptions in the system from which a desired conflict free set of conclusions can be obtained under a given semantic. After describing our algorithm, we establish its soundness, completeness and complexity.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being increasingly used to develop systems that produce intelligent solutions. However, there is a major concern that whether the systems built will be trusted by humans. In order to establish trust in AI systems, there is a need for the user to understand the reasoning behind their solutions and therefore, the system should be able to explain and justify its output. In this paper, we use argumentation to provide explanations in the domain of AI planning. We present argument schemes to create arguments that explain a plan and its components; and a set of critical questions that allow interaction between the arguments and enable the user to obtain further information regarding the key elements of the plan. Finally, we present some properties of the plan arguments.

Theory of Mind is commonly defined as the ability to attribute mental states (e.g., beliefs, goals) to oneself, and to others. A large body of previous work - from the social sciences to artificial intelligence - has observed that Theory of Mind capabilities are central to providing an explanation to another agent or when explaining that agent's behaviour. In this paper, we build and expand upon previous work by providing an account of explanation in terms of the beliefs of agents and the mechanism by which agents revise their beliefs given possible explanations. We further identify a set of desiderata for explanations that utilize Theory of Mind. These desiderata inform our belief-based account of explanation.

A new robust algorithm based of the explanation method SurvLIME called SurvLIME-KS is proposed for explaining machine learning survival models. The algorithm is developed to ensure robustness to cases of a small amount of training data or outliers of survival data. The first idea behind SurvLIME-KS is to apply the Cox proportional hazards model to approximate the black-box survival model at the local area around a test example due to the linear relationship of covariates in the model. The second idea is to incorporate the well-known Kolmogorov-Smirnov bounds for constructing sets of predicted cumulative hazard functions. As a result, the robust maximin strategy is used, which aims to minimize the average distance between cumulative hazard functions of the explained black-box model and of the approximating Cox model, and to maximize the distance over all cumulative hazard functions in the interval produced by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov bounds. The maximin optimization problem is reduced to the quadratic program. Various numerical experiments with synthetic and real datasets demonstrate the SurvLIME-KS efficiency.

Since COVID-19 was first identified in December 2019, various public health interventions have been implemented across the world. As different measures are implemented at different countries at different times, we conduct an assessment of the relative effectiveness of the measures implemented in 18 countries and regions using data from 22/01/2020 to 02/04/2020. We compute the top one and two measures that are most effective for the countries and regions studied during the period. Two Explainable AI techniques, SHAP and ECPI, are used in our study; such that we construct (machine learning) models for predicting the instantaneous reproduction number ($R_t$) and use the models as surrogates to the real world and inputs that the greatest influence to our models are seen as measures that are most effective. Across-the-board, city lockdown and contact tracing are the two most effective measures. For ensuring $R_t<1$, public wearing face masks is also important. Mass testing alone is not the most effective measure although when paired with other measures, it can be effective. Warm temperature helps for reducing the transmission.

Explainable machine learning and artificial intelligence models have been used to justify a model's decision-making process. This added transparency aims to help improve user performance and understanding of the underlying model. However, in practice, explainable systems face many open questions and challenges. Specifically, designers might reduce the complexity of deep learning models in order to provide interpretability. The explanations generated by these simplified models, however, might not accurately justify and be truthful to the model. This can further add confusion to the users as they might not find the explanations meaningful with respect to the model predictions. Understanding how these explanations affect user behavior is an ongoing challenge. In this paper, we explore how explanation veracity affects user performance and agreement in intelligent systems. Through a controlled user study with an explainable activity recognition system, we compare variations in explanation veracity for a video review and querying task. The results suggest that low veracity explanations significantly decrease user performance and agreement compared to both accurate explanations and a system without explanations. These findings demonstrate the importance of accurate and understandable explanations and caution that poor explanations can sometimes be worse than no explanations with respect to their effect on user performance and reliance on an AI system.

The rapid growth of research in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) follows on two substantial developments. First, the enormous application success of modern machine learning methods, especially deep and reinforcement learning, which have created high expectations for industrial, commercial and social value. Second, the emergence of concern for creating trusted AI systems, including the creation of regulatory principles to ensure transparency and trust of AI systems.These two threads have created a kind of "perfect storm" of research activity, all eager to create and deliver it any set of tools and techniques to address the XAI demand. As some surveys of current XAI suggest, there is yet to appear a principled framework that respects the literature of explainability in the history of science, and which provides a basis for the development of a framework for transparent XAI. Here we intend to provide a strategic inventory of XAI requirements, demonstrate their connection to a history of XAI ideas, and synthesize those ideas into a simple framework to calibrate five successive levels of XAI.

Systems based on artificial intelligence and machine learning models should be transparent, in the sense of being capable of explaining their decisions to gain humans' approval and trust. While there are a number of explainability techniques that can be used to this end, many of them are only capable of outputting a single one-size-fits-all explanation that simply cannot address all of the explainees' diverse needs. In this work we introduce a model-agnostic and post-hoc local explainability technique for black-box predictions called LIMEtree, which employs surrogate multi-output regression trees. We validate our algorithm on a deep neural network trained for object detection in images and compare it against Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME). Our method comes with local fidelity guarantees and can produce a range of diverse explanation types, including contrastive and counterfactual explanations praised in the literature. Some of these explanations can be interactively personalised to create bespoke, meaningful and actionable insights into the model's behaviour. While other methods may give an illusion of customisability by wrapping, otherwise static, explanations in an interactive interface, our explanations are truly interactive, in the sense of allowing the user to "interrogate" a black-box model. LIMEtree can therefore produce consistent explanations on which an interactive exploratory process can be built.

Argumentation is a type of discourse where speakers try to persuade their audience about the reasonableness of a claim by presenting supportive arguments. Most work in argument mining has focused on modeling arguments in monologues. We propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums that brings together the micro-level (argument as product) and macro-level (argument as process) models of argumentation. Fundamentally, this approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our approach for relation prediction uses contextual information in terms of fine-tuning a pre-trained language model and leveraging discourse relations based on Rhetorical Structure Theory. We additionally propose a candidate selection method to automatically predict what parts of one's argument will be targeted by other participants in the discussion. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches using pointer networks and a pre-trained language model.