Much of what we see in AI today is working to reproduce the way natural intelligence works, with the hopes that we'll get to human-level decisions that are faster and more circumspect. For example, in the world of accounting, an application of AI would be to identify spending variance (i.e., transactions that break from normal practices of the company or industry). Human beings can identify spending trends and variance in a group of a few hundred transactions, most of which get identified as false positives after further investigation. In the same or less time, AI can identify spending trends and variance across billions of transactions and perform further investigation to eliminate false flags within milliseconds. The concern in this scenario is that the "further investigation" is some nebulous black box that we are expected to trust.

European Law now requires AI to be explainable in the context of adverse decisions affecting European Union (EU) citizens. At the same time, it is expected that there will be increasing instances of AI failure as it operates on imperfect data. This paper puts forward a neurally-inspired framework called decision stacks that can provide for a way forward in research aimed at developing explainable AI. Leveraging findings from memory systems in biological brains, the decision stack framework operationalizes the definition of explainability and then proposes a test that can potentially reveal how a given AI decision came to its conclusion.

SAN FRANCISCO – Applications of Artificial Intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning are relatively useless without a lucid understanding of how the outputs of their predictive models are derived. Explainable AI hinges on explainability--a clear verbalizing of how the various weights and measures of machine learning models generate their outputs. Those explanations, in turn, are determined by interpretability: the statistical or mathematical understanding of the numerical outputs of decisions made by predictive models. Interpretability is foundational to unraveling some of the more consistent issues plaguing AI today. Facilitating interpretability--and using it as the impetus for refining machine learning models and the data on which they're trained--is indispensable for overcoming the threat of biased models once and for all.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming big business, with all kinds of fascinating opportunities. Growth has been extraordinary: in 2015, global AI revenues were $126 billion, and last year revenues were $482 billion. The prediction for 2024 is that revenues will top $3.061 trillion. Advances in AI are making it possible for computers to take on more tasks that were formally done by humans. While this trend is creating greater efficiencies, it is also increasing the degree to which people feel that they are talking to a wall.

In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This paper is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the principle-based approach, in which semantics are evaluated based on their satisfaction of various normatively desirable principles. A descriptive perspective is provided by the empirical approach, in which cognitive studies are conducted to determine which semantics best predicts human judgments about arguments. In this paper, we combine both approaches to motivate a new argumentation semantics called SCF2. For this purpose, we introduce and motivate two new principles and show that no semantics from the literature satisfies both of them. We define SCF2 and prove that it satisfies both new principles. Furthermore, we discuss findings of a recent empirical cognitive study that provide additional support to SCF2.

A new challenge for knowledge graph reasoning started in 2018. Deep learning has promoted the application of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to a wide variety of social problems. Accordingly, being able to explain the reason for an AI decision is b ecoming important to ensure the secure and safe use of AI techniques. Thus, we, the Special Interest Group on Semantic Web and Ontology of the Japanese Society for AI, organized a challenge calling for techniques that reason and/or estimate which character s are criminals while providing a reasonable explanation based on an open knowledge graph of a well - known Sherlock Holmes mystery story . This paper presents a summary report of the first challenge held in 2018, including the knowledge graph construction, t he techniques proposed for reasoning and/or estimation, the evaluation metrics, and the results. The first prize went to an approach that formalized the problem as a constraint satisfaction problem and solved it using a lightweight formal method; the secon d prize went to an approach that used SPARQL and rules; the best resource prize went to a submission that constructed word embedding of characters from all sentences of Sherlock Holmes novels; and the best idea prize went to a discussion multi - agents model . We conclude this paper with the plans and issues for the next challenge in 2019.

ConArg is a suite of tools that offers a wide series of applications for dealing with argumentation problems. In this work, we present the advances we made in implementing a ranking-based semantics, based on computational choice power indexes, within ConArg. Such kind of semantics represents a method for sorting the arguments of an abstract argumentation framework, according to some preference relation. The ranking-based semantics we implement relies on Shapley, Banzhaf, Deegan-Packel and Johnston power index, transferring well know properties from computational social choice to argumentation framework ranking-based semantics.

Experienced machine learning experts will know about the challenge's complexity and rightfully question the results' validity. At the same time, submissions like this Notebook illustrate how the Titanic competition's leaderboard can be forged effortlessly; A top-performing model can be created by collecting and including the publicly accessible list of survivors. Clearly, such overfit models only work for one very specific use case and are virtually useless for predicting outcomes in any other situation (not to mention the ethics of cheating). So, how can we make sure we have trained or are provided with a model that we can actually use in production? How can machine learning systems be deployed without likely ensuing disaster?

Explainable AI is an important area of research within which Explainable Planning is an emerging topic. In this paper, we argue that Explainable Planning can be designed as a service -- that is, as a wrapper around an existing planning system that utilises the existing planner to assist in answering contrastive questions. We introduce a prototype framework to facilitate this, along with some examples of how a planner can be used to address certain types of contrastive questions. We discuss the main advantages and limitations of such an approach and we identify open questions for Explainable Planning as a service that identify several possible research directions.

With the increasing complexity of CPSs, their behavior and decisions become increasingly difficult to understand and comprehend for users and other stakeholders. Our vision is to build self-explainable systems that can, at run-time, answer questions about the system's past, current, and future behavior. As hitherto no design methodology or reference framework exists for building such systems, we propose the MAB-EX framework for building self-explainable systems that leverage requirements- and explainability models at run-time. The basic idea of MAB-EX is to first Monitor and Analyze a certain behavior of a system, then Build an explanation from explanation models and convey this EXplanation in a suitable way to a stakeholder. We also take into account that new explanations can be learned, by updating the explanation models, should new and yet un-explainable behavior be detected by the system.