We apply ideas from abstract argumentation theory to study cooperative game theory. Building on Dung's results in his seminal paper, we further the correspondence between Dung's four argumentation semantics and solution concepts in cooperative game theory by showing that complete extensions (the grounded extension) correspond to Roth's subsolutions (respectively, the supercore). We then investigate the relationship between well-founded argumentation frameworks and convex games, where in each case the semantics (respectively, solution concepts) coincide; we prove that three-player convex games do not in general have well-founded argumentation frameworks.

In the field of argumentation, the vision of robust argumentation machines is investigated. They explore natural language arguments from available information sources on the web and reason with them on the knowledge level to actively support the deliberation and synthesis of arguments for a particular query of a user. We aim at combining methods from case-based reasoning (CBR), information retrieval, and computational argumentation to contribute to the foundations of such argumentation machines. In this paper, we focus on the retrieval phase of a CBR approach for an argumentation machine and propose similarity measures for arguments represented as argument graphs. We evaluate the similarity measures on a corpus of annotated micro texts containing different topics and demonstrate the benefit of semantic similarity measures as well as the relevance of structural aspects.

Translating machine learning (ML) models effectively to clinical practice requires establishing clinicians' trust. Explainability, or the ability of an ML model to justify its outcomes and assist clinicians in rationalizing the model prediction, has been generally understood to be critical to establishing trust. However, the field suffers from the lack of concrete definitions for usable explanations in different settings. To identify specific aspects of explainability that may catalyze building trust in ML models, we surveyed clinicians from two distinct acute care specialties (Intenstive Care Unit and Emergency Department). We use their feedback to characterize when explainability helps to improve clinicians' trust in ML models. We further identify the classes of explanations that clinicians identified as most relevant and crucial for effective translation to clinical practice. Finally, we discern concrete metrics for rigorous evaluation of clinical explainability methods. By integrating perceptions of explainability between clinicians and ML researchers we hope to facilitate the endorsement and broader adoption and sustained use of ML systems in healthcare.

The U.S Capitol is seen at sunrise. Imagine there is a group of people in Congress with more influence over whether laws are passed and rules are changed, than any official committee or subcommittee in the House and Senate. Now, imagine the members of this powerful group are not even members of Congress – in fact, they're not elected officials at all. Finally, imagine this group operates in secret, refuses to explain its decisions in detail to anyone, and has shown a consistent bias against free market principles. Unfortunately, you don't have to imagine this scenario.

Conversational agents, also known as chatbots, are versatile tools that have the potential of being used in dialogical argumentation. They could possibly be deployed in tasks such as persuasion for behaviour change (e.g. persuading people to eat more fruit, to take regular exercise, etc.) However, to achieve this, there is a need to develop methods for acquiring appropriate arguments and counterargument that reflect both sides of the discussion. For instance, to persuade someone to do regular exercise, the chatbot needs to know counterarguments that the user might have for not doing exercise. To address this need, we present methods for acquiring arguments and counterarguments, and importantly, meta-level information that can be useful for deciding when arguments can be used during an argumentation dialogue. We evaluate these methods in studies with participants and show how harnessing these methods in a chatbot can make it more persuasive.

We expect an increase in frequency and severity of cyber-attacks that comes along with the need of efficient security countermeasures. The process of attributing a cyber-attack helps in constructing efficient and targeted mitigative and preventive security measures. In this work, we propose an argumentation-based reasoner (ABR) that helps the analyst during the analysis of forensic evidence and the attribution process. Given the evidence collected from the cyber-attack, our reasoner helps the analyst to identify who performed the attack and suggests the analyst where to focus further analyses by giving hints of the missing evidence, or further investigation paths to follow. ABR is the first automatic reasoner that analyzes and attributes cyber-attacks by using technical and social evidence, as well as incomplete and conflicting information. ABR was tested on realistic cyber-attacks cases.

This paper presents a taxonomy of explainability in Human-Agent Systems. We consider fundamental questions about the Why, Who, What, When and How of explainability. First, we define explainability, and its relationship to the related terms of interpretability, transparency, explicitness, and faithfulness. These definitions allow us to answer why explainability is needed in the system, whom it is geared to and what explanations can be generated to meet this need. We then consider when the user should be presented with this information. Last, we consider how objective and subjective measures can be used to evaluate the entire system. This last question is the most encompassing as it will need to evaluate all other issues regarding explainability.

A counterfactual query is typically of the form 'For situation X, why was the outcome Y and not Z?'. A counterfactual explanation (or response to such a query) is of the form "If X was X*, then the outcome would have been Z rather than Y." In this work, we develop a technique to produce counterfactual visual explanations. Given a 'query' image $I$ for which a vision system predicts class $c$, a counterfactual visual explanation identifies how $I$ could change such that the system would output a different specified class $c'$. To do this, we select a 'distractor' image $I'$ that the system predicts as class $c'$ and identify spatial regions in $I$ and $I'$ such that replacing the identified region in $I$ with the identified region in $I'$ would push the system towards classifying $I$ as $c'$. We apply our approach to multiple image classification datasets generating qualitative results showcasing the interpretability and discriminativeness of our counterfactual explanations. To explore the effectiveness of our explanations in teaching humans, we present machine teaching experiments for the task of fine-grained bird classification. We find that users trained to distinguish bird species fare better when given access to counterfactual explanations in addition to training examples.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) brings a lot of attention recently. Explainability is being presented as a remedy for lack of trust in model predictions. Model agnostic tools such as LIME, SHAP, or Break Down promise instance level interpretability for any complex machine learning model. But how certain are these explanations? Can we rely on additive explanations for non-additive models? In this paper, we examine the behavior of model explainers under the presence of interactions. We define two sources of uncertainty, model level uncertainty, and explanation level uncertainty. We show that adding interactions reduces explanation level uncertainty. We introduce a new method iBreakDown that generates non-additive explanations with local interaction.

Abstract Persuasion Argumentation (APA) is a dynamic argumentation formalism that extends Dung argumentation with persuasion relations. In this work, we show through two-counter Minsky machine encoding that APA dynamics is Turing-complete.