Article includes shout outs to Doug Laney ('The 3 Vs of Big Data'), Cathy O'Neil "Weapons of #Math Destruction) & Tony's'Big on Data bro' Andrew J. Brust.

In Part II of our year-ahead outlook, we explore the sleeper issues that will drive data management and the mainstreaming of AI in analytics. In the year ahead, we see the cloud, AI, and data management as the megaforces of the data and analytics agenda. And so, picking up where Big on Data bro Andrew Brust left off last week, we're looking at some of the underlying issues that are shaping adoption. In the world of data and analytics, you can't start a conversation today without bringing in cloud and AI. Yesterday in Part I, we hit the cloud checkbox: we explored how the upcoming generation change in enterprise applications will in turn shift the context of how enterprises are going to be evaluating cloud deployment.

When rolling out new IT it's important to explain the reasoning behind a new implementation and ask for clinician input. When physicians feel like they are a cog in the wheel of implementation, they will resist.

Conflicting information in an agent's knowledge base may lead to a semantical defect, that is, a situation where it is impossible to draw any plausible conclusion. Finding out the reasons for the observed inconsistency (so-called diagnoses) and/or restoring consistency in a certain minimal way (so-called repairs) are frequently occurring issues in knowledge representation and reasoning. In this article we provide a series of first results for these problems in the context of abstract argumentation theory regarding the two most important reasoning modes, namely credulous as well as sceptical acceptance. Our analysis includes the following problems regarding minimal repairs/diagnoses: existence, verification, computation of one and enumeration of all solutions. The latter problem is tackled with a version of the so-called hitting set duality first introduced by Raymond Reiter in 1987. It turns out that grounded semantics plays an outstanding role not only in terms of complexity, but also as a useful tool to reduce the search space for diagnoses regarding other semantics.

A recently introduced text classifier, called SS3, has obtained state-of-the-art performance on the CLEF's eRisk tasks. SS3 was created to deal with risk detection over text streams and therefore not only supports incremental training and classification but also can visually explain its rationale. However, little attention has been paid to the potential use of SS3 as a general classifier. We believe this could be due to the unavailability of an open-source implementation of SS3. In this work, we introduce PySS3, a package that not only implements SS3 but also comes with visualization tools that allow researchers deploying robust, explainable and trusty machine learning models for text classification.

Recent success in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) allow problem solving automatically without any human intervention. Autonomous approaches can be very convenient. However, in certain domains, e.g., in the medical domain, it is necessary to enable a domain expert to understand, why an algorithm came up with a certain result. Consequently, the field of Explainable AI (xAI) rapidly gained interest worldwide in various domains, particularly in medicine. Explainable AI studies transparency and traceability of opaque AI/ML and there are already a huge variety of methods. For example with layer-wise relevance propagation relevant parts of inputs to, and representations in, a neural network which caused a result, can be highlighted. This is a first important step to ensure that end users, e.g., medical professionals, assume responsibility for decision making with AI/ML and of interest to professionals and regulators. Interactive ML adds the component of human expertise to AI/ML processes by enabling them to re-enact and retrace AI/ML results, e.g. let them check it for plausibility. This requires new human-AI interfaces for explainable AI. In order to build effective and efficient interactive human-AI interfaces we have to deal with the question of how to evaluate the quality of explanations given by an explainable AI system. In this paper we introduce our System Causability Scale (SCS) to measure the quality of explanations. It is based on our notion of Causability (Holzinger et al., 2019) combined with concepts adapted from a widely accepted usability scale.

High-level patterns are the basis for describing big plans in big steps. Automating the discovery of abstractions has long been a challenge, and understanding the discovery and sharing of abstractions in learning and explanation are at the frontier of XAI research today.

We propose an explainable reinforcement learning (XRL) framework that analyzes an agent's history of interaction with the environment to extract interestingness elements that help explain its behavior. The framework relies on data readily available from standard RL algorithms, augmented with data that can easily be collected by the agent while learning. We describe how to create visual explanations of an agent's behavior in the form of short video-clips highlighting key interaction moments, based on the proposed elements. We also report on a user study where we evaluated the ability of humans in correctly perceiving the aptitude of agents with different characteristics, including their capabilities and limitations, given explanations automatically generated by our framework. The results show that the diversity of aspects captured by the different interestingness elements is crucial to help humans correctly identify the agents' aptitude in the task, and determine when they might need adjustments to improve their performance.

Systems incorporating Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) techniques are increasingly used to guide decision-making in the healthcare sector. While AI-based systems provide powerful and promising results with regard to their classification and prediction accuracy (e.g., in differentiating between different disorders in human gait), most share a central limitation, namely their black-box character. Understanding which features classification models learn, whether they are meaningful and consequently whether their decisions are trustworthy is difficult and often impossible to comprehend. This severely hampers their applicability as decision-support systems in clinical practice. There is a strong need for AI-based systems to provide transparency and justification of predictions, which are necessary also for ethical and legal compliance. As a consequence, in recent years the field of explainable AI (XAI) has gained increasing importance. The primary aim of this article is to investigate whether XAI methods can enhance transparency, explainability and interpretability of predictions in automated clinical gait classification. We utilize a dataset comprising bilateral three-dimensional ground reaction force measurements from 132 patients with different lower-body gait disorders and 62 healthy controls. In our experiments, we included several gait classification tasks, employed a representative set of classification methods, and a well-established XAI method - Layer-wise Relevance Propagation - to explain decisions at the signal (input) level. The presented approach exemplifies how XAI can be used to understand and interpret state-of-the-art ML models trained for gait classification tasks, and shows that the features that are considered relevant for machine learning models can be attributed to meaningful and clinically relevant biomechanical gait characteristics.

Core to human-centered AI is explainability. If a machine cannot explain its reasoning in a way that humans understand and on human terms, the AI isn't working for people. Researchers from Georgia Institute of Technology, Cornell University and the University of Kentucky recently published the results of teaching a machine to generate conversational explanations of its model's internal state and action data representations in real-time. They tested whether people like the machine to tell them how it made decisions, and what characteristics of explanations drove people's perceptions of explainability. Relatability is key to understandability – when an AI uses natural language to explain itself, people put themselves in the AI's shoes and evaluate understandability based on whether the AI gives the same reasons they would.