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.

Decades before today's deep learning neural networks compiled imponderable layers of statistics into working machines, researchers were trying to figure out how one explains statistical findings to a human. IBM this week offered up the latest effort in that long quest to interpret, explain, and justify machine learning, a set of open-source programming resources it calls "AI 360 Explainability." It remains to be seen whether yet another tool will solve the conundrum of how people can understand what is going on when artificial intelligence makes a prediction based on data. The toolkit consists of eight different algorithms released in the course of 2018. The IBM tools are posted on Github as a Python library.

Art exhibition "Waterfall of Meaning" by Google PAIR displayed at the Barbican Curve Gallery. The rise of deep learning has been defined by a shift away from transparent and understandable human-written code towards sealed black boxes whose creators have little understanding of how or even why they yield the results they do. Concerns over bias, brittleness and flawed representations have led to growing interest in the area of "explainable AI" in which frameworks help interrogate a model's internal workings to shed light on precisely what it has learned about the world and help its developers nudge it towards a fairer and more faithful internal representation. As companies like Google roll out a growing stable of explainable AI tools like its What-If Tool, perhaps a more transparent and understandable deep learning future can help address the limitations that have slowed the field's deployment. Since the dawn of the computing revolution, the underlying programming that guided those mechanical thinking machines was provided by humans through transparent and visible instruction sets.

Decades of research in artificial intelligence (AI) have produced formidable technologies that are providing immense benefit to industry, government, and society. AI systems can now translate across multiple languages, identify objects in images and video, streamline manufacturing processes, and control cars. The deployment of AI systems has not only created a trillion-dollar industry that is projected to quadruple in three years, but has also exposed the need to make AI systems fair, explainable, trustworthy, and secure. Future AI systems will rightfully be expected to reason effectively about the world in which they (and people) operate, handling complex tasks and responsibilities effectively and ethically, engaging in meaningful communication, and improving their awareness through experience. Achieving the full potential of AI technologies poses research challenges that require a radical transformation of the AI research enterprise, facilitated by significant and sustained investment. These are the major recommendations of a recent community effort coordinated by the Computing Community Consortium and the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence to formulate a Roadmap for AI research and development over the next two decades.

With the increasing use of machine learning in practice and because of legal regulations like EU's GDPR, it becomes indispensable to be able to explain the prediction and behavior of machine learning models. An example of easy to understand explanations of AI models are counterfactual explanations. However, for many models it is still an open research problem how to efficiently compute counterfactual explanations. We investigate how to efficiently compute counterfactual explanations of learning vector quantization models. In particular, we propose different types of convex and non-convex programs depending on the used learning vector quantization model.

Current AI approaches have frequently been used to help personalize many aspects of medical experiences and tailor them to a specific individuals' needs. However, while such systems consider medically-relevant information, they ignore socially-relevant information about how this diagnosis should be communicated and discussed with the patient. The lack of this capability may lead to mis-communication, resulting in serious implications, such as patients opting out of the best treatment. Consider a case in which the same treatment is proposed to two different individuals. The manner in which this treatment is mediated to each should be different, depending on the individual patient's history, knowledge, and mental state. While it is clear that this communication should be conveyed via a human medical expert and not a software-based system, humans are not always capable of considering all of the relevant aspects and traversing all available information. We pose the challenge of creating Intelligent Agents (IAs) to assist medical service providers (MSPs) and consumers in establishing a more personalized human-to-human dialogue. Personalizing conversations will enable patients and MSPs to reach a solution that is best for their particular situation, such that a relation of trust can be built and commitment to the outcome of the interaction is assured. We propose a four-part conceptual framework for personalized social interactions, expand on which techniques are available within current AI research and discuss what has yet to be achieved.

Machine learning systems have become popular in fields such as marketing, financing, or data mining. While they are highly accurate, complex machine learning systems pose challenges for engineers and users. Their inherent complexity makes it impossible to easily judge their fairness and the correctness of statistically learned relations between variables and classes. Explainable AI aims to solve this challenge by modelling explanations alongside with the classifiers, potentially improving user trust and acceptance. However, users should not be fooled by persuasive, yet untruthful explanations. We therefore conduct a user study in which we investigate the effects of model accuracy and explanation fidelity, i.e. how truthfully the explanation represents the underlying model, on user trust. Our findings show that accuracy is more important for user trust than explainability. Adding an explanation for a classification result can potentially harm trust, e.g. when adding nonsensical explanations. We also found that users cannot be tricked by high-fidelity explanations into having trust for a bad classifier. Furthermore, we found a mismatch between observed (implicit) and self-reported (explicit) trust.

In the last years, abstract argumentation has met with great success in AI, since it has served to capture several non-monotonic logics for AI. Relations between argumentation framework (AF) semantics and logic programming ones are investigating more and more. In particular, great attention has been given to the well-known stable extensions of an AF, that are closely related to the answer sets of a logic program. However, if a framework admits a small incoherent part, no stable extension can be provided. To overcome this shortcoming, two semantics generalizing stable extensions have been studied, namely semi-stable and stage. In this paper, we show that another perspective is possible on incoherent AFs, called paracoherent extensions, as they have a counterpart in paracoherent answer set semantics. We compare this perspective with semi-stable and stage semantics, by showing that computational costs remain unchanged, and moreover an interesting symmetric behaviour is maintained. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.