The promise of artificial intelligence is that machines will help humans make better decisions. But we need to understand what machines are doing, to avoid mistakes and to understand our data. As organizations become more reliant on AI and machine learning models, how can humans be sure they are receiving trustworthy answers to the right questions?

Data-driven predictive models are increasingly used to inform decisions that hold important consequences for individuals and society. As a result, decision makers are often obliged, even legally required, to provide explanations about their decisions. In this context, it has been increasingly argued that these explanations should help individuals understand what would have to change for these decisions to be beneficial ones. However, there has been little discussion on the possibility that individuals may use the above counterfactual explanations to invest effort strategically in order to maximize their chances of receiving a beneficial decision. In this paper, our goal is to find policies and counterfactual explanations that are optimal in terms of utility in such a strategic setting. To this end, we first show that, given a pre-defined policy, the problem of finding the optimal set of counterfactual explanations is NP-hard. However, we further show that the corresponding objective is nondecreasing and satisfies submodularity. Therefore, a standard greedy algorithm offers an approximation factor of $(1-1/e)$ at solving the problem. Additionally, we also show that the problem of jointly finding both the optimal policy and set of counterfactual explanations reduces to maximizing a non-monotone submodular function. As a result, we can use a recent randomized algorithm to solve the problem, which offers an approximation factor of $1/e$. Finally, we illustrate our theoretical findings by performing experiments on synthetic and real lending data.

Machine learning (ML) systems across many application areas are increasingly demonstrating performance that is beyond that of humans. In response to the proliferation of such models, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has sought to develop techniques that enhance the transparency and interpretability of machine learning methods. In this work, we consider a question not previously explored within the XAI and ML communities: Given a computational system whose performance exceeds that of its human user, can explainable AI capabilities be leveraged to improve the performance of the human? We study this question in the context of the game of Chess, for which computational game engines that surpass the performance of the average player are widely available. We introduce the Rationale-Generating Algorithm, an automated technique for generating rationales for utility-based computational methods, which we evaluate with a multi-day user study against two baselines. The results show that our approach produces rationales that lead to statistically significant improvement in human task performance, demonstrating that rationales automatically generated from an AI's internal task model can be used not only to explain what the system is doing, but also to instruct the user and ultimately improve their task performance.

Explanations--a form of post-hoc interpretability--play an instrumental role in making systems accessible as AI continues to proliferate complex and sensitive sociotechnical systems. In this paper, we introduce Human-centered Explainable AI (HCXAI) as an approach that puts the human at the center of technology design. It develops a holistic understanding of "who" the human is by considering the interplay of values, interpersonal dynamics, and the socially situated nature of AI systems. In particular, we advocate for a reflective sociotechnical approach. We illustrate HCXAI through a case study of an explanation system for nontechnical end-users that shows how technical advancements and the understanding of human factors co-evolve. Building on the case study, we lay out open research questions pertaining to further refining our understanding of "who" the human is and extending beyond 1-to-1 human-computer interactions. Finally, we propose that a reflective HCXAI paradigm--mediated through the perspective of Critical Technical Practice and supplemented with strategies from HCI, such as value-sensitive design and participatory design--not only helps us understand our intellectual blind spots, but it can also open up new design and research spaces.

As more and more complex AI systems are introduced into our day-to-day lives, it becomes important that everyday users can work and interact with such systems with relative ease. Orchestrating such interactions require the system to be capable of providing explanations and rationale for its decisions and be able to field queries about alternative decisions. A significant hurdle to allowing for such explanatory dialogue could be the mismatch between the complex representations that the systems use to reason about the task and the terms in which the user may be viewing the task. This paper introduces methods that can be leveraged to provide contrastive explanations in terms of user-specified concepts for deterministic sequential decision-making settings where the system dynamics may be best represented in terms of black box simulators. We do this by assuming that system dynamics can at least be partly captured in terms of symbolic planning models, and we provide explanations in terms of these models. We implement this method using a simulator for a popular Atari game (Montezuma's Revenge) and perform user studies to verify whether people would find explanations generated in this form useful.

Traditionally, researchers in automatic face recognition and biometric technologies have focused on developing accurate algorithms. With this technology being integrated into operational systems, engineers and scientists are being asked, do these systems meet societal norms? The origin of this line of inquiry is `trust' of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. In this paper, we concentrate on adapting explainable AI to face recognition and biometrics, and we present four principles of explainable AI to face recognition and biometrics. The principles are illustrated by $\it{four}$ case studies, which show the challenges and issues in developing algorithms that can produce explanations.

Consider a person who applies for a loan with a financial company, but their application is rejected by a machine learning algorithm used to determine who receives a loan from the company. How would you explain the decision made by the algorithm to this person? One option is to provide them with a list of features that contributed to the algorithm's decision, such as income and credit score. Many of the current explanation methods provide this information by either analyzing the algorithm's properties or approximating it with a simpler, interpretable model. However, these explanations do not help this person decide what to do next to increase their chances of getting the loan in the future.

Recent years have seen the expansion of artificial intelligence into an array of industries with varying levels of disruption. Once a horizon-technology (perhaps similar to how we now view quantum computing) AI has officially breached everyday life, and informed opinions are no longer reserved for tech enthusiasts and elite data scientists. Now, stakeholders include executives, investors, managers, the government, and ultimately customers. While conversations regarding Explainable AI (xAI) date back decades, the concept emerged with renewed vigor in late 2019 when Google announced its new set of xAI tools for developers. The concept of xAI is relatively simple: historically, machine learning models have operated within a "black box," with outcomes determined by an astounding number of interwoven parameters so complex (in the millions) that explaining them proved impossible.

Active Learning (AL) is a human-in-the-loop Machine Learning paradigm favored for its ability to learn with fewer labeled instances, but the model's states and progress remain opaque to the annotators. Meanwhile, many recognize the benefits of model transparency for people interacting with ML models, as reflected by the surge of explainable AI (XAI) as a research field. However, explaining an evolving model introduces many open questions regarding its impact on the annotation quality and the annotator's experience. In this paper, we propose a novel paradigm of explainable active learning (XAL), by explaining the learning algorithm's prediction for the instance it wants to learn from and soliciting feedback from the annotator. We conduct an empirical study comparing the model learning outcome, human feedback content and the annotator experience with XAL, to that of traditional AL and coactive learning (providing the model's prediction without the explanation). Our study reveals benefits--supporting trust calibration and enabling additional forms of human feedback, and potential drawbacks--anchoring effect and frustration from transparent model limitations--of providing local explanations in AL. We conclude by suggesting directions for developing explanations that better support annotator experience in AL and interactive ML settings.

The need for transparency of predictive systems based on Machine Learning algorithms arises as a consequence of their ever-increasing proliferation in the industry. Whenever black-box algorithmic predictions influence human affairs, the inner workings of these algorithms should be scrutinised and their decisions explained to the relevant stakeholders, including the system engineers, the system's operators and the individuals whose case is being decided. While a variety of interpretability and explainability methods is available, none of them is a panacea that can satisfy all diverse expectations and competing objectives that might be required by the parties involved. We address this challenge in this paper by discussing the promises of Interactive Machine Learning for improved transparency of black-box systems using the example of contrastive explanations -- a state-of-the-art approach to Interpretable Machine Learning. Specifically, we show how to personalise counterfactual explanations by interactively adjusting their conditional statements and extract additional explanations by asking follow-up "What if?" questions. Our experience in building, deploying and presenting this type of system allowed us to list desired properties as well as potential limitations, which can be used to guide the development of interactive explainers. While customising the medium of interaction, i.e., the user interface comprising of various communication channels, may give an impression of personalisation, we argue that adjusting the explanation itself and its content is more important. To this end, properties such as breadth, scope, context, purpose and target of the explanation have to be considered, in addition to explicitly informing the explainee about its limitations and caveats...