Despite recent advances in the field of explainable artificial intelligence systems, a concrete quantitative measure for evaluating the usability of such systems is nonexistent. Ensuring the success of an explanatory interface in interacting with users requires a cyclic, symbiotic relationship between human and artificial intelligence. We, therefore, propose explanatory efficacy, a novel metric for evaluating the strength of the cyclic relationship the interface exhibits. Furthermore, in a user study, we evaluated the perceived affect and workload and recorded the EEG signals of our participants as they interacted with our custom-built, iterative explanatory interface to build personalized recommendation systems. We found that systems for perceptually driven iterative tasks with greater explanatory efficacy are characterized by statistically significant hemispheric differences in neural signals, indicating the feasibility of neural correlates as a measure of explanatory efficacy. These findings are beneficial for researchers who aim to study the circular ecosystem of the human-artificial intelligence partnership. Keywords: Affect; Brain Lateralization; EEG; Explanatory Efficacy; Human-centric Explainable Artificial Intelligence; Interactive Explanation; Workload 1. Introduction Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms have resulted in models that not only achieve high predictive performance but also provide explanatory features to support their decisions, increasing model interpretability and transparency in real-world environments [1]. However, merely providing explanations is insufficient. Ultimately, AI should address the problems hindering human-agent interaction. Much of the current work for human-interpretable machine learning systems suffers from a lack of usability and efficacy [2]. Developing such a feedback-based interface for AI systems requires an evaluation on the strength of the cyclic relationship the interface exhibits, which we define as explanatory efficacy . Failing to integrate user knowledge with machine systems can decrease interaction quality to the point of causing interaction breakdowns. Consequently, the systems will lose their ability to justify their recommendations, decisions, or actions, resulting in a loss of trust from their users.

Department of Computing Science, Ume a University 90187 Ume a, Sweden Abstract Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for nonmonotonic reasoning that has gained tremendous traction in the symbolic artificial intelligence community. In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentation that were refined over the years are typically evaluated from a logics perspective; an analysis that is based on models of ideal, rational decision-making does not exist. In this paper, we close this gap by analyzing abstract argumentation from the perspective of the rational man paradigm in microeconomic theory. To assess under which conditions abstract argumentation-based choice functions can be considered economically rational, we define a new argumentation principle that ensures compliance with the rational man's reference independence property, which stipulates that a rational agent's preferences over two choice options should not be influenced by the absence or presence of additional options. We show that the argumentation semantics as proposed in Dung's classical paper, as well as all of a range of other semantics we evaluate do not fulfill this newly created principle. Consequently, we investigate how structural properties of argumentation frameworks impact the reference independence principle, and propose a restriction to argumentation expansions that allows all of the evaluated semantics to fulfill the requirements for economically rational argumentation-based choice. For this purpose, we define the rational man's expansion as a normal and noncyclic expansion. Finally, we put reference independence into the context of preference-based argumentation and show that for this argumentation variant, which explicitly model preferences, the rational man's expansion cannot ensure reference independence.

Zillow, an online marketplace that facilitates the buying, selling, renting, financing, and remodeling of homes, employs lots of AI technologies to do things like estimate home prices. But the output of AI systems like these can be opaque, creating a "black box" problem where practitioners and customers can't audit the systems properly. Without transparency, serious problems like algorithmic bias can persist undetected, and trust in the models becomes impossible. For obvious ethical reasons, this is why explainable AI (XAI) is so crucial to the creation and deployment of AI systems, but pragmatically, it's also key to the success of AI-powered products and services from companies like Zillow. David Fagnan, director of applied science on the Zillow Offers team, discussed with VentureBeat how and why XAI is indispensable for the company.

Humans engage in informal debates on a daily basis. By expressing their opinions and ideas in an argumentative fashion, they are able to gain a deeper understanding of a given problem and in some cases, find the best possible course of actions towards resolving it. In this paper, we develop a methodology to verify debates formalised as abstract argumentation frameworks. We first present a translation from debates to transition systems. Such transition systems can model debates and represent their evolution over time using a finite set of states. We then formalise relevant debate properties using temporal and strategy logics. These formalisations, along with a debate transition system, allow us to verify whether a given debate satisfies certain properties. The verification process can be automated using model checkers. Therefore, we also measure their performance when verifying debates, and use the results to discuss the feasibility of model checking debates.

Secure Trust Bank has become the first UK lender to complete live deployment of credit application models built using Archetype, the proprietary'explainable' AI-driven software of credit scoring and AI experts, Jaywing.

Explanations in Machine Learning come in many forms, but a consensus regarding their desired properties is yet to emerge. In this paper we introduce a taxonomy and a set of descriptors that can be used to characterise and systematically assess explainable systems along five key dimensions: functional, operational, usability, safety and validation. In order to design a comprehensive and representative taxonomy and associated descriptors we surveyed the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence literature, extracting the criteria and desiderata that other authors have proposed or implicitly used in their research. The survey includes papers introducing new explainability algorithms to see what criteria are used to guide their development and how these algorithms are evaluated, as well as papers proposing such criteria from both computer science and social science perspectives. This novel framework allows to systematically compare and contrast explainability approaches, not just to better understand their capabilities but also to identify discrepancies between their theoretical qualities and properties of their implementations. We developed an operationalisation of the framework in the form of Explainability Fact Sheets, which enable researchers and practitioners alike to quickly grasp capabilities and limitations of a particular explainable method. When used as a Work Sheet, our taxonomy can guide the development of new explainability approaches by aiding in their critical evaluation along the five proposed dimensions.

Our research is a step toward understanding when explanations of AIdriven hints and feedback are useful in Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). We added an explanation functionality for the adaptive hints provided by the Adaptive CSP (ACSP) applet, an inte lligent interactive simulation that helps students learn an algorithm for constraint satisfaction problems. We present the design of the explanation functionality and the results of an exploratory study to evaluate how students use it, including an analysis of how students' experience with the explanation functionality is affected by several personality traits and abilities . Our results show a significant impact of a measure of curiosity and the Agreeableness personality trait and provide insight toward des igning personalized Explainable AI (XAI) for ITS .

Explaining the output of a complex machine learning (ML) model often requires approximation using a simpler model. To construct interpretable explanations that are also consistent with the original ML model, counterfactual examples --- showing how the model's output changes with small perturbations to the input --- have been proposed. This paper extends the work in counterfactual explanations by addressing the challenge of feasibility of such examples. For explanations of ML models in critical domains such as healthcare, finance, etc, counterfactual examples are useful for an end-user only to the extent that perturbation of feature inputs is feasible in the real world. We formulate the problem of feasibility as preserving causal relationships among input features and present a method that uses (partial) structural causal models to generate actionable counterfactuals. When feasibility constraints may not be easily expressed, we propose an alternative method that optimizes for feasibility as people interact with its output and provide oracle-like feedback. Our experiments on a Bayesian network and the widely used "Adult" dataset show that our proposed methods can generate counterfactual explanations that satisfy feasibility constraints.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is putting forward a regulation that businesses and other organizations are required to explain decisions made by artificial intelligence (AI) or face multimillion-dollar fines if unable to. The guidance will provide advice such as how to explain the procedures, services, and outcomes delivered or assisted by AI to affected individuals. The report would detail the documentation of the decision-making process and data used to arrive at a decision. In extreme cases, organizations that fail to comply may face a fine of up to 4 percent of a company's global turnover, under the EU's data protection law. The new guidance is crucial as many firms in the UK are using some form of AI to execute critical business decisions, such as shortlisting and hiring candidates for roles. At the same time, two-thirds of UK financial services rely on AI to support customer services, drive business decisions and transactions.

We study the interpretability of predictive systems that use high-dimensonal behavioral and textual data. Examples include predicting product interest based on online browsing data and detecting spam emails or objectionable web content. Recently, counterfactual explanations have been proposed for generating insight into model predictions, which focus on what is relevant to a particular instance. Conducting a complete search to compute counterfactuals is very time-consuming because of the huge dimensionality. To our knowledge, for behavioral and text data, only one model-agnostic heuristic algorithm (SEDC) for finding counterfactual explanations has been proposed in the literature. However, there may be better algorithms for finding counterfactuals quickly. This study aligns the recently proposed Linear Interpretable Model-agnostic Explainer (LIME) and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) with the notion of counterfactual explanations, and empirically benchmarks their effectiveness and efficiency against SEDC using a collection of 13 data sets. Results show that LIME-Counterfactual (LIME-C) and SHAP-Counterfactual (SHAP-C) have low and stable computation times, but mostly, they are less efficient than SEDC. However, for certain instances on certain data sets, SEDC's run time is comparably large. With regard to effectiveness, LIME-C and SHAP-C find reasonable, if not always optimal, counterfactual explanations. SHAP-C, however, seems to have difficulties with highly unbalanced data. Because of its good overall performance, LIME-C seems to be a favorable alternative to SEDC, which failed for some nonlinear models to find counterfactuals because of the particular heuristic search algorithm it uses. A main upshot of this paper is that there is a good deal of room for further research. For example, we propose algorithmic adjustments that are direct upshots of the paper's findings.