In this paper, we present a novel approach for the task of eXplainable Question Answering (XQA), i.e., generating natural language (NL) explanations for the Visual Question Answering (VQA) problem. We generate NL explanations comprising of the evidence to support the answer to a question asked to an image using two sources of information: (a) annotations of entities in an image (e.g., object labels, region descriptions, relation phrases) generated from the scene graph of the image, and (b) the attention map generated by a VQA model when answering the question. We show how combining the visual attention map with the NL representation of relevant scene graph entities, carefully selected using a language model, can give reasonable textual explanations without the need of any additional collected data (explanation captions, etc). We run our algorithms on the Visual Genome (VG) dataset and conduct internal user-studies to demonstrate the efficacy of our approach over a strong baseline. We have also released a live web demo showcasing our VQA and textual explanation generation using scene graphs and visual attention.

A survey of early work exploring how AI can be used in medicine, with somewhat more technical expositions than in the complementary volume Artificial Intelligence in Medicine."Each chapter is preceded by a brief introduction that outlines our view of its contribution to the field, the reason it was selected for inclusion in this volume, an overview of its content, and a discussion of how the work evolved after the article appeared and how it relates to other chapters in the book.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding beyond academics and the web giants, who have immense access to data and computing power and deep pockets to fund research projects. There is a lot of hype, but companies are being urged to embrace AI. Two studies published recently have emphasised the importance of businesses adopting AI to remain competitive. The Let's get real about AI study from OC&C consultants reported that spending on AI has been huge: $219bn was spent by businesses on AI globally in 2018, equivalent to about 7% of the total enterprise IT spend. AI spend in the US was $91bn in 2018, and $12bn in the UK.

JANICE S. AIKINS Dr. Aikins received her Ph.D. in computer science from Stanford University in 1980. She is currently a research computer scientist at IBM's Palo Alto Scientific Center. She specializes in designing systems with an emphasis on the explicit representation of control knowledge in expert systems. ROBERT L. BLUM Dr. Blum received his M.D. from the University of California Medical School at San Francisco in 1973. From 1973 to 1976 he did an internship and residency in the Department of Internal Medicine at the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Oakland, California, where he was chief resident in 1976.

This is an integrative review that address the question, "What makes for a good explanation?" with reference to AI systems. Pertinent literatures are vast. Thus, this review is necessarily selective. That said, most of the key concepts and issues are expressed in this Report. The Report encapsulates the history of computer science efforts to create systems that explain and instruct (intelligent tutoring systems and expert systems). The Report expresses the explainability issues and challenges in modern AI, and presents capsule views of the leading psychological theories of explanation. Certain articles stand out by virtue of their particular relevance to XAI, and their methods, results, and key points are highlighted. It is recommended that AI/XAI researchers be encouraged to include in their research reports fuller details on their empirical or experimental methods, in the fashion of experimental psychology research reports: details on Participants, Instructions, Procedures, Tasks, Dependent Variables (operational definitions of the measures and metrics), Independent Variables (conditions), and Control Conditions.

Generating explanation to explain its behavior is an essential capability for a robotic teammate. Explanations help human partners better understand the situation and maintain trust of their teammates. Prior work on robot generating explanations focuses on providing the reasoning behind its decision making. These approaches, however, fail to heed the cognitive requirement of understanding an explanation. In other words, while they provide the right explanations from the explainer's perspective, the explainee part of the equation is ignored. In this work, we address an important aspect along this direction that contributes to a better understanding of a given explanation, which we refer to as the progressiveness of explanations. A progressive explanation improves understanding by limiting the cognitive effort required at each step of making the explanation. As a result, such explanations are expected to be smoother and hence easier to understand. A general formulation of progressive explanation is presented. Algorithms are provided based on several alternative quantifications of cognitive effort as an explanation is being made, which are evaluated in a standard planning competition domain.

Recent years have seen a boom in interest in machine learning systems that can provide a human-understandable rationale for their predictions or decisions. However, exactly what kinds of explanation are truly human-interpretable remains poorly understood. This work advances our understanding of what makes explanations interpretable under three specific tasks that users may perform with machine learning systems: simulation of the response, verification of a suggested response, and determining whether the correctness of a suggested response changes under a change to the inputs. Through carefully controlled human-subject experiments, we identify regularizers that can be used to optimize for the interpretability of machine learning systems. Our results show that the type of complexity matters: cognitive chunks (newly defined concepts) affect performance more than variable repetitions, and these trends are consistent across tasks and domains. This suggests that there may exist some common design principles for explanation systems.

As machine learning models become more accurate, they typically become more complex and uninterpretable by humans. The black-box character of these models holds back its acceptance in practice, especially in high-risk domains where the consequences of failure could be catastrophic such as health-care or defense. Providing understandable and useful explanations behind ML models or predictions can increase the trust of the user. Example-based reasoning, which entails leveraging previous experience with analogous tasks to make a decision, is a well known strategy for problem solving and justification. This work presents a new explanation extraction method called LEAFAGE, for a prediction made by any black-box ML model. The explanation consists of the visualization of similar examples from the training set and the importance of each feature. Moreover, these explanations are contrastive which aims to take the expectations of the user into account. LEAFAGE is evaluated in terms of fidelity to the underlying black-box model and usefulness to the user. The results showed that LEAFAGE performs overall better than the current state-of-the-art method LIME in terms of fidelity, on ML models with non-linear decision boundary. A user-study was conducted which focused on revealing the differences between example-based and feature importance-based explanations. It showed that example-based explanations performed significantly better than feature importance-based explanation, in terms of perceived transparency, information sufficiency, competence and confidence. Counter-intuitively, when the gained knowledge of the participants was tested, it showed that they learned less about the black-box model after seeing a feature importance-based explanation than seeing no explanation at all. The participants found feature importance-based explanation vague and hard to generalize it to other instances.

Since its founding, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been a hub of innovation. While created as the research arm of the Department of Defense, DARPA has played an important role in some of the technologies that have become (or will become) fundamental to modern human societies. In the 1960s and 1970s, DARPA (then known as ARPA), created ARPANET, the computer network that became the precursor to the internet. In 2003, DARP launched CALO, a project that ushered in the era of Siri and other voice-enabled assistants. In 2004, DARPA launched the Grand Challenge, a competition that set the stage for current developments and advances in self-driving cars. In 2013, DARPA launched the Brain Initiative, an ambitious project that brings together universities, tech companies and neuroscientists to discover how the brain works and develop technologies that enable the human brain to interact with the digital world. Among DARPA's many exciting projects is Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), an initiative launched in 2016 aimed at solving one of the principal challenges of deep learning and neural networks, the subset of AI that is becoming increasing prominent in many different sectors.

There is a disconnect between explanatory artificial intelligence (XAI) methods and the types of explanations that are useful for and demanded by society (policy makers, government officials, etc.) Questions that experts in artificial intelligence (AI) ask opaque systems provide inside explanations, focused on debugging, reliability, and validation. These are different from those that society will ask of these systems to build trust and confidence in their decisions. Although explanatory AI systems can answer many questions that experts desire, they often don't explain why they made decisions in a way that is precise (true to the model) and understandable to humans. These outside explanations can be used to build trust, comply with regulatory and policy changes, and act as external validation. In this paper, we focus on XAI methods for deep neural networks (DNNs) because of DNNs' use in decision-making and inherent opacity. We explore the types of questions that explanatory DNN systems can answer and discuss challenges in building explanatory systems that provide outside explanations for societal requirements and benefit.