W e present an approach to generating natural language justifications of decisions derived from norm-based reasoning. Assuming an agent which maximally satisfies a set of rules specified in an object-oriented temporal logic, the user can ask factual questions (about the agent's rules, actions, and the extent to which the agent violated the rules) as well as "why" questions that require the agent comparing actual behavior to counterfactual trajectories with respect to these rules. To produce natural-sounding explanations, we focus on the subproblem of producing natural language clauses from statements in a fragment of temporal logic, and then describe how to embed these clauses into explanatory sentences. W e use a human judgment evaluation on a testbed task to compare our approach to variants in terms of intelligibility, mental model and perceived trust.

Argumentation is today a topical area of artificial intelligence (AI) research. Abstract argumentation, with argumentation frameworks (AFs) as the underlying knowledge representation formalism, is a central viewpoint to argumentation in AI. Indeed, from the perspective of AI and computer science, understanding computational and representational aspects of AFs is key in the study of argumentation. Realizability of AFs has been recently proposed as a central notion for analyzing the expressive power of AFs under different semantics. In this work, we propose and study the AF synthesis problem as a natural extension of realizability, addressing some of the shortcomings arising from the relatively stringent definition of realizability. In particular, realizability gives means of establishing exact conditions on when a given collection of subsets of arguments has an AF with exactly the given collection as its set of extensions under a specific argumentation semantics. However, in various settings within the study of dynamics of argumentation---including revision and aggregation of AFs---non-realizability can naturally occur. To accommodate such settings, our notion of AF synthesis seeks to construct, or synthesize, AFs that are semantically closest to the knowledge at hand even when no AFs exactly representing the knowledge exist. Going beyond defining the AF synthesis problem, we study both theoretical and practical aspects of the problem. In particular, we (i) prove NP-completeness of AF synthesis under several semantics, (ii) study basic properties of the problem in relation to realizability, (iii) develop algorithmic solutions to NP-hard AF synthesis using the constraint optimization paradigms of maximum satisfiability and answer set programming, (iv) empirically evaluate our algorithms on different forms of AF synthesis instances, as well as (v) discuss variants and generalizations of AF synthesis.

The social implications of algorithmic decision-making in sensitive contexts have generated lively debates among multiple stakeholders, suc h as moral and political philosophers, computer scientists, and the public. Yet, the lack of a common language and a conceptual framework for an appropriate bridging of the mor al, technical, and political aspects of the debate prevents the discussion to be as effective a s it can be. Social scientists and psychologists are contributing to this debate by gather ing a wealth of empirical data, yet a philosophical analysis of the social implications of a lgorithmic decision-making remains comparatively impoverished. In attempting to address this lacuna, this paper argues that a hierarchy of different types of explanations for why and how an algorithmic decision outcome is achieved can establish the relevant connection between t he moral and technical aspects of algorithmic decision-making. In particular, I offer a multifaceted conceptual framework for the explanations and the interpretations of algorithmic de cisions, and I claim that this framework can lay the groundwork for a focused discussion among mu ltiple stakeholders about the social implications of algorithmic decision-making, as we ll as AI governance and ethics more generally.

Interpretability is an elusive but highly sought-after characteristic of modern machine learning methods. Recent work has focused on interpretability via $\textit{explanations}$, which justify individual model predictions. In this work, we take a step towards reconciling machine explanations with those that humans produce and prefer by taking inspiration from the study of explanation in philosophy, cognitive science, and the social sciences. We identify key aspects in which these human explanations differ from current machine explanations, distill them into a list of desiderata, and formalize them into a framework via the notion of $\textit{weight of evidence}$ from information theory. Finally, we instantiate this framework in two simple applications and show it produces intuitive and comprehensible explanations.

We discuss promising recent contributions on quantifying feature relevance using Shapley values, where we observed some confusion on which probability distribution is the right one for dropped features. We argue that the confusion is based on not carefully distinguishing between observational and interventional conditional probabilities and try a clarification based on Pearl's seminal work on causality. We conclude that unconditional rather than conditional expectations provide the right notion of dropping features in contradiction to the theoretical justification of the software package SHAP . Parts of SHAP are unaffected because unconditional expectations (which we argue to be conceptually right) are used as approximation for the conditional ones, which encouraged others to'improve' SHAP in a way that we believe to be flawed. Further, our criticism concerns TreeExplainer in SHAP, which really uses conditional expectations (without approximating them by unconditional ones).

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is the attempt to make the finding of results of non-linearly programmed systems transparent to avoid so-called black-box processes. The main task of XAI is to make non-linear programmed systems transparent. It offers practical methods to explain AI models, which, for example, correspond to the regulation of the data protection laws of the European Union (DSVGO). The following five methods are listed, which have to make AI models more transparent and understandable. Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) is a technique that brings such explainability and scales to potentially highly complex deep neural networks.

Surrogate explainers of black-box machine learning predictions are of paramount importance in the field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence since they can be applied to any type of data (images, text and tabular), are model-agnostic and are post-hoc (i.e., can be retrofitted). The Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) algorithm is often mistakenly unified with a more general framework of surrogate explainers, which may lead to a belief that it is the solution to surrogate explainability. In this paper we empower the community to "build LIME yourself" (bLIMEy) by proposing a principled algorithmic framework for building custom local surrogate explainers of black-box model predictions, including LIME itself. To this end, we demonstrate how to decompose the surrogate explainers family into algorithmically independent and interoperable modules and discuss the influence of these component choices on the functional capabilities of the resulting explainer, using the example of LIME.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is making more decisions for us than ever before. AI is helping us keep our cars on the right lane, helping judges make the right decision, and even deciding who lives or dies on the battlefield. As AI proliferates in our daily lives, there is also a growing fear that humans lose control. The European Commission's current president, Ursula Von der Leyen, has pushed hard to start creating frameworks to regulate the use of AI, resulting in a document guidelining the requirements that AI systems need to meet in order to be trustworthy. One of the key elements of these guidelines is the notion that "AI systems and their decisions should be explained in a manner adapted to the stakeholder concerned." What the European Commission really wants then, is Explainable AI (EAI): an AI where the logic for making the decision, or a summary of the logic is made available.

Most of the available health care diagnostics that use artificial intelligence (AI) function as black boxes--meaning that results do not include any explanation of why the machine thinks a patient has a certain disease or disorder. While AI technologies are extraordinarily powerful, adoption of these algorithms in health care has been slow because doctors and regulators cannot verify their results. However, a new type of algorithm called "explainable AI" (XAI) can be easily understood by humans. As a result, all signs point to XAI being rapidly adopted across health care, making it likely that providers will actually use the associated diagnostics. With advantages over black box AI, Explainable AI (XAI) is likely to be the dominant algorithm in ... [ ] health care.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the most exciting technologies in the world right now. In particular, it's bringing life to ideas that were once just a figment of Hollywood films. However, it has also created polarised viewpoints. Many AI experts are working towards reaping its full potential, while others worry about creating a Black Mirror-esque reality. Perhaps the best way to meet in the middle is by exploring explainable AI.