In this work, we formulate the process of generating explanations as model reconciliation for planning problems as one of planning with explanatory actions. We show that these problems could be better understood within the framework of epistemic planning and that, in fact, most earlier works on explanation as model reconciliation correspond to tractable subsets of epistemic planning problems. We empirically show how our approach is computationally more efficient than existing techniques for explanation generation and also discuss how this particular approach could be extended to capture most of the existing variants of explanation as model reconciliation. We end the paper with a discussion of how this formulation could be extended to generate novel explanatory behaviors.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes an integral part of our life, the development of explainable AI, embodied in the decision-making process of an AI or robotic agent, becomes imperative. For a robotic teammate, the ability to generate explanations to explain its behavior is one of the key requirements of an explainable agency. Prior work on explanation generation focuses on supporting the reasoning behind the robot's behavior. These approaches, however, fail to consider the cognitive effort needed to understand the received explanation. In particular, the human teammate is expected to understand any explanation provided before the task execution, no matter how much information is presented in the explanation. In this work, we argue that an explanation, especially complex ones, should be made in an online fashion during the execution, which helps to spread out the information to be explained and thus reducing the cognitive load of humans. However, a challenge here is that the different parts of an explanation are dependent on each other, which must be taken into account when generating online explanations. To this end, a general formulation of online explanation generation is presented. We base our explanation generation method in a model reconciliation setting introduced in our prior work. Our approach is evaluated both with human subjects in a standard planning competition (IPC) domain, using NASA Task Load Index (TLX), as well as in simulation with four different problems.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a transformational $15 trillion opportunity. Today AI is becoming more sophisticated, decisions of machine or action thereby have a far-reaching impact on individual, society, or government. However, decision making is being performed by an algorithmic'black box'. Today's AL/ML models are mostly opaque, non-intuitive and difficult for people to understand and therefore suffer through key issues like trustworthiness, reliability, rationality, and transparency of models. To have confidence in the outcomes, cement stakeholder trust and ultimately capitalise on the opportunities, it is quite necessary to know the rationale of how the algorithm arrived at its recommendation or decision.

This paper presents an explainable AI (XAI) system that provides explanations for its predictions. The system consists of two key components - namely, the prediction And-Or graph (AOG) model for recognizing and localizing concepts of interest in input data, and the XAI model for providing explanations to the user about the AOG's predictions. In this work, we Figure 1: Two frames (scenes) of a video: (a) focus on the XAI model specified to interact top-left image (scene1) shows two persons sitting with the user in natural language, at the reception and others entering the auditorium whereas the AOG's predictions are considered and (b) top-right (scene2) image people running given and represented by the corresponding out of an auditorium. Bottom-left shows the parse graphs (pg's) of the AOG. AOG parse graph (pg) for the top-left image and Our XAI model takes pg's as input and Bottom-right shows the pg for the top-right image provides answers to the user's questions using the following types of reasoning: direct evidence (e.g., detection scores), Consider for example, two frames (scenes) of part-based inference (e.g., detected parts a video shown in Figure 1. An action detection provide evidence for the concept asked), model might predict that two people in the scene1 and other evidences from spatiotemporal are in sitting posture. User might be interested context (e.g., constraints from the spatiotemporal to know more details about the prediction such surround). We identify several as: Why do the model think the people are in sitting correlations between user's questions posture? Why not standing instead of sitting? and the XAI answers using Youtube Action Why two persons are sitting instead of one?

Several inconsistency-tolerant semantics have been introduced for querying inconsistent description logic knowledge bases. The first contribution of this paper is a practical approach for computing the query answers under three well-known such semantics, namely the AR, IAR and brave semantics, in the lightweight description logic DL-LiteR. We show that query answering under the intractable AR semantics can be performed efficiently by using IAR and brave semantics as tractable approximations and encoding the AR entailment problem as a propositional satisfiability (SAT) problem. The second issue tackled in this work is explaining why a tuple is a (non-)answer to a query under these semantics. We define explanations for positive and negative answers under the brave, AR and IAR semantics. We then study the computational properties of explanations in DL-LiteR. For each type of explanation, we analyze the data complexity of recognizing (preferred) explanations and deciding if a given assertion is relevant or necessary. We establish tight connections between intractable explanation problems and variants of SAT, enabling us to generate explanations by exploiting solvers for Boolean satisfaction and optimization problems. Finally, we empirically study the efficiency of our query answering and explanation framework using a benchmark we built upon the well-established LUBM benchmark.

With new technologies like faster payments taking hold, the explosion of readily-available data, and the ever-changing regulatory landscape, staying ahead of financial crime and compliance risk has become more complex and expensive than ever before. As these trends show no sign of abating, the compliance operations and monitoring staff of a financial institution often find themselves a major cost center. Financial institutions (FIs) must manage compliance budgets without losing sight of primary functions and quality control. To answer this, many have made the move to automating time-intensive, rote tasks like data gathering and sorting through alerts by adopting innovative technologies like AI and machine learning to free up time-strapped analysts for more informed and precise decision-making processes. As FIs often benchmark themselves against their competitors, they are increasingly interested in seeing how these technologies are performing, and are asking themselves how to leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning to increase insight, reduce false positives and decrease compliance spend.

A Timed Argumentation Framework (TAF) is a formalism where arguments are only valid for consideration in a given period of time, called availability intervals, which are defined for every individual argument. The original proposal is based on a single, abstract notion of attack between arguments that remains static and permanent in time. Thus, in general, when identifying the set of acceptable arguments, the outcome associated with a TAF will vary over time. In this work we introduce an extension of TAF adding the capability of modeling a support relation between arguments. In this sense, the resulting framework provides a suitable model for different time-dependent issues. Thus, the main contribution here is to provide an enhanced framework for modeling a positive (support) and negative (attack) interaction varying over time, which are relevant in many real-world situations. This leads to a Timed Bipolar Argumentation Framework (T-BAF), where classical argument extensions can be defined. The proposal aims at advancing in the integration of temporal argumentation in different application domain.

In this work, we enrich a formalism for argumentation by including a formal characterization of features related to the knowledge, in order to capture proper reasoning in legal domains. We add meta-data information to the arguments in the form of labels representing quantitative and qualitative data about them. These labels are propagated through an argumentative graph according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation between arguments.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) systems need to include an explanation model to communicate the internal decisions, behaviours and actions to the interacting humans. Successful explanation involves both cognitive and social processes. In this paper we focus on the challenge of meaningful interaction between an explainer and an explainee and investigate the structural aspects of an interactive explanation to propose an interaction protocol. We follow a bottom-up approach to derive the model by analysing transcripts of different explanation dialogue types with 398 explanation dialogues. We use grounded theory to code and identify key components of an explanation dialogue. We formalize the model using the agent dialogue framework (ADF) as a new dialogue type and then evaluate it in a human-agent interaction study with 101 dialogues from 14 participants. Our results show that the proposed model can closely follow the explanation dialogues of human-agent conversations.

Argumentation theory is a powerful paradigm that formalizes a type of commonsense reasoning that aims to simulate the human ability to resolve a specific problem in an intelligent manner. A classical argumentation process takes into account only the properties related to the intrinsic logical soundness of an argument in order to determine its acceptability status. However, these properties are not always the only ones that matter to establish the argument's acceptability---there exist other qualities, such as strength, weight, social votes, trust degree, relevance level, and certainty degree, among others.