Central to the concept of multi-domain operations (MDO) is the utilization of an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) network consisting of overlapping systems of remote and autonomous sensors, and human intelligence, distributed among multiple partners. Realising this concept requires advancement in both artificial intelligence (AI) for improved distributed data analytics and intelligence augmentation (IA) for improved human-machine cognition. The contribution of this paper is threefold: (1) we map the coalition situational understanding (CSU) concept to MDO ISR requirements, paying particular attention to the need for assured and explainable AI to allow robust human-machine decision-making where assets are distributed among multiple partners; (2) we present illustrative vignettes for AI and IA in MDO ISR, including human-machine teaming, dense urban terrain analysis, and enhanced asset interoperability; (3) we appraise the state-of-the-art in explainable AI in relation to the vignettes with a focus on human-machine collaboration to achieve more rapid and agile coalition decision-making. The union of these three elements is intended to show the potential value of a CSU approach in the context of MDO ISR, grounded in three distinct use cases, highlighting how the need for explainability in the multi-partner coalition setting is key. Introduction Multi-domain operations (MDO) require the capacity, capability, and endurance to operate across multiple domains -- from dense urban terrain to space and cyberspace -- in contested environments against near-peer adversaries (U.S. Army 2018).

Have you ever wondered how machine learning models work? Or what, exactly, goes on inside these models and whether we can trust them? Well, you're in luck, because I'm going to try to give you a very general overview of what XAI is and why we need it by answering a few common questions. After reading this, you should be able to understand the necessity of XAI and whether you need to start thinking about integrating it with your ML projects/products. Explainable AI (XAI) is a rather new field in machine learning (ML) in which researchers try to develop models that are able to explain the decision-making process behind ML models. XAI has many different research branches but, generally speaking, it either tries to explain the results of complex, black-box ML models or tries to incorporate interpretability into current ML architectures.

What is driving the demand, how incumbents are responding, and how startups are already tackling explainability 2.0 Explainable AI helps a user understand the machine's decision-making process. Instead of discussing methods of explainable AI (e.g., LIME, SHAP, etc.), below are some dimensions to wrap our heads around the concept. What explainable AI means depends on the user, the object being explained, and the underlying data. It is such a broad and rapidly developing field that when discussing explainable AI in-depth, it is good to have a mental framework of how it fits these dimensions. Most examples in this article are products built for business decision makers analyzing tabular data.

Explainability or interpretability of AI is a huge deal these days, especially due to the rise in the number of enterprises depending on the decisions made by machine learning and deep learning. Naturally, stakeholders want a level of transparency for how the algorithms came up with their recommendations. The so-called "black box" of AI is rapidly being questioned. For this reason, I was encouraged to learn of IBM's recent efforts in this area. The company's research arm just launched a new open-source AI toolkit, "AI Explainability 360," consisting of state-of-the-art algorithms that support the interpretability and explainability of machine learning models.

Demi Lovato deactivates her Twitter account after getting backlash for mocking 21 Savage following his ICE arrest. Demi Lovato is apologizing after some characterized her recent trip to Israel, during which she was baptized in the Jordan River, as a political statement. Lovato, 27, traveled to the Middle East after she "accepted a free trip to Israel in exchange for a few [social media] posts." But her trip apparently sparked backlash, as the singer saw the need to explain the reasoning for her experience in a follow-up Instagram Story. "I'm extremely frustrated," she wrote. "No one told me there would be anything wrong with going or that I could possibly be offending anyone.

In recent years, machine learning (ML) has become a key enabling technology for the sciences and industry. Especially through improvements in methodology, the availability of large databases and increased computational power, today's ML algorithms are able to achieve excellent performance (at times even exceeding the human level) on an increasing number of complex tasks. Deep learning models are at the forefront of this development. However, due to their nested non-linear structure, these powerful models have been generally considered "black boxes", not providing any information about what exactly makes them arrive at their predictions. Since in many applications, e.g., in the medical domain, such lack of transparency may be not acceptable, the development of methods for visualizing, explaining and interpreting deep learning models has recently attracted increasing attention. This introductory paper presents recent developments and applications in this field and makes a plea for a wider use of explainable learning algorithms in practice.

Work in Counterfactual Explanations tends to focus on the principle of ``the closest possible world'' that identifies small changes leading to the desired outcome. In this paper we argue that while this approach might initially seem intuitively appealing it exhibits shortcomings not addressed in the current literature. First, a counterfactual example generated by the state-of-the-art systems is not necessarily representative of the underlying data distribution, and may therefore prescribe unachievable goals(e.g., an unsuccessful life insurance applicant with severe disability may be advised to do more sports). Secondly, the counterfactuals may not be based on a ``feasible path'' between the current state of the subject and the suggested one, making actionable recourse infeasible (e.g., low-skilled unsuccessful mortgage applicants may be told to double their salary, which may be hard without first increasing their skill level). These two shortcomings may render counterfactual explanations impractical and sometimes outright offensive. To address these two major flaws, first of all, we propose a new line of Counterfactual Explanations research aimed at providing actionable and feasible paths to transform a selected instance into one that meets a certain goal. Secondly, we propose FACE: an algorithmically sound way of uncovering these ``feasible paths'' based on the shortest path distances defined via density-weighted metrics. Our approach generates counterfactuals that are coherent with the underlying data distribution and supported by the ``feasible paths'' of change, which are achievable and can be tailored to the problem at hand.

Many high-performance models suffer from a lack of interpretability. There has been an increasing influx of work on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in order to disentangle what is meant and expected by XAI. Nevertheless, there is no general consensus on how to produce and judge explanations. In this paper, we discuss why techniques integrating connectionist and symbolic paradigms are the most efficient solutions to produce explanations for non-technical users and we propose a reasoning model, based on definitions by Doran et al. [2017] (arXiv:1710.00794) to explain a neural network's decision. We use this explanation in order to correct bias in the network's decision rationale. We accompany this model with an example of its potential use, based on the image captioning method in Burns et al. [2018] (arXiv:1803.09797).

We present a new explainable AI (XAI) framework aimed at increasing justified human trust and reliance in the AI machine through explanations. We pose explanation as an iterative communication process, i.e. dialog, between the machine and human user. More concretely, the machine generates sequence of explanations in a dialog which takes into account three important aspects at each dialog turn: (a) human's intention (or curiosity); (b) human's understanding of the machine; and (c) machine's understanding of the human user. To do this, we use Theory of Mind (ToM) which helps us in explicitly modeling human's intention, machine's mind as inferred by the human as well as human's mind as inferred by the machine. In other words, these explicit mental representations in ToM are incorporated to learn an optimal explanation policy that takes into account human's perception and beliefs. Furthermore, we also show that ToM facilitates in quantitatively measuring justified human trust in the machine by comparing all the three mental representations. We applied our framework to three visual recognition tasks, namely, image classification, action recognition, and human body pose estimation. We argue that our ToM based explanations are practical and more natural for both expert and non-expert users to understand the internal workings of complex machine learning models. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to derive explanations using ToM. Extensive human study experiments verify our hypotheses, showing that the proposed explanations significantly outperform the state-of-the-art XAI methods in terms of all the standard quantitative and qualitative XAI evaluation metrics including human trust, reliance, and explanation satisfaction.

From marketing to politics, exploitation of incomplete information through selective communication of arguments is ubiquitous. In this work, we focus on development of an argumentation-theoretic model for manipulable multi-agent argumentation, where each agent may transmit deceptive information to others for tactical motives. In particular, we study characterisation of epistemic states, and their roles in deception/honesty detection and (mis)trust-building. To this end, we propose the use of intra-agent preferences to handle deception/honesty detection and inter-agent preferences to determine which agent(s) to believe in more. We show how deception/honesty in an argumentation of an agent, if detected, would alter the agent's perceived trustworthiness, and how that may affect their judgement as to which arguments should be acceptable. 1 Introduction To adequately characterise multi-agent argumentation, it is important to model what an agent sees of other agents' argumentations ( Epistemic Aspect). It is also important to model how agents interact with others ( Agent-to-Agent Interaction). These two factors determine dynamics of multi-agent argumentation, and are thus central to: argumentation-based negotiations (Cf.