We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for nonelementary arguments such as: X argues against Y's sincerity with the fact that Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting other facts which would not have validated C. Argumentation involving such arguments requires us to potentially consider an argument as a coherent block of argumentation, i.e. an argument may itself be an argumentation. In this work, we formulate block argumentation as a specific instance of Dung-style bipolar abstract argumentation with the dual nature of arguments. We consider internal consistency of an argument(ation) under a set of constraints, of graphical (syntactic) and of semantic nature, and formulate acceptability semantics in relation to them. We discover that classical acceptability semantics do not in general hold good with the constraints. In particular, acceptability of unattacked arguments is not always warranted. Further, there may not be a unique minimal member in complete semantics, thus sceptic (grounded) semantics may not be its subset. To retain set-theoretically minimal semantics as a subset of complete semantics, we define semi-grounded semantics. Through comparisons, we show how the concept of block argumentation may further generalise structured argumentation.

The two biggest problems are as follows. First, the predictive power of the Model is always lower than what we'd like it to be. The question is what can be done to boost the predictive power of the model and what the odds of success are. Second, the model does not explain its reasoning. It is up to us to understand why it does what it does.

Automated rationale generation is an approach for real-time explanation generation whereby a computational model learns to translate an autonomous agent's internal state and action data representations into natural language. Training on human explanation data can enable agents to learn to generate human-like explanations for their behavior. In this paper, using the context of an agent that plays Frogger, we describe (a) how to collect a corpus of explanations, (b) how to train a neural rationale generator to produce different styles of rationales, and (c) how people perceive these rationales. We conducted two user studies. The first study establishes the plausibility of each type of generated rationale and situates their user perceptions along the dimensions of confidence, humanlike-ness, adequate justification, and understandability. The second study further explores user preferences between the generated rationales with regard to confidence in the autonomous agent, communicating failure and unexpected behavior. Overall, we find alignment between the intended differences in features of the generated rationales and the perceived differences by users. Moreover, context permitting, participants preferred detailed rationales to form a stable mental model of the agent's behavior.

No. 1 – Detecting abnormal travel expenses Most existing systems for reporting travel expenses apply pre-defined views, such as time period, service or employee group. While these systems aim to detect abnormal expenses systematically, they usually fail to explain why the claims singled out are judged to be abnormal. To address this lack of visibility into the context of abnormal travel expense claims, Accenture Labs designed and built a travel expenses system incorporating Explainable AI. By combining knowledge graph and machine learning technologies, the system delivers insight to explain any abnormal claims in real-time. No. 2 – Project risk management Most large companies manage hundreds, if not thousands, of projects every year across multiple vendors, clients and partners.

Explanation in machine learning and related fields such as artificial intelligence aims at making machine learning models and their decisions understandable to humans. Existing work suggests that personalizing explanations might help to improve understandability. In this work, we derive a conceptualization of personalized explanation by defining and structuring the problem based on prior work on machine learning explanation, personalization (in machine learning) and concepts and techniques from other domains such as privacy and knowledge elicitation. We perform a categorization of explainee information used in the process of personalization as well as describing means to collect this information. We also identify three key explanation properties that are amendable to personalization: complexity, decision information and presentation. We also enhance existing work on explanation by introducing additional desiderata and measures to quantify the quality of personalized explanations.

We find ourselves surrounded by a rapidly increasing number of autonomous and semi-autonomous systems. Two grand challenges arise from this development: Machine Ethics and Machine Explainability. Machine Ethics, on the one hand, is concerned with behavioral constraints for systems, so that morally acceptable, restricted behavior results; Machine Explainability, on the other hand, enables systems to explain their actions and argue for their decisions, so that human users can understand and justifiably trust them. In this paper, we try to motivate and work towards a framework combining Machine Ethics and Machine Explainability. Starting from a toy example, we detect various desiderata of such a framework and argue why they should and how they could be incorporated in autonomous systems. Our main idea is to apply a framework of formal argumentation theory both, for decision-making under ethical constraints and for the task of generating useful explanations given only limited knowledge of the world. The result of our deliberations can be described as a first version of an ethically motivated, principle-governed framework combining Machine Ethics and Machine Explainability

Geoffrey Hinton dismissed the need for explainable AI. A range of experts have explained why he is wrong. I actually tend to agree with Geoff. Explainable AI is overrated and hyped by the media. A whole industry has sprung up with a business model of scaring everyone about AI being not explainable. And they use words like discrimination which create a sense of shock-horror.

Yes, it is Holy Grail of AI and for the right reason; whether it about losing a High-Value customer due to wrong Churn Prediction or losing dollars due to incorrect classification of a financial transaction. In reality, Customers are the less bothered accuracy of AI model, but their concerns are about Cluelessness of Data Scientist to explain "How do I trust its decision making?" Data Scientists building credit risk models in the consumer space faced the transparency requirement probably for as long as this field existed, due to regulatory compliance which governs the consumer risk. Marketers also have been bound by certain rules which disallow protected categories such as gender or race to enter the models. These regulations were created in US to protect consumers.

The Aristotelian trichotomy distinguishes three aspects of argumentation: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. Even rich argumentation representations like the Argument Interchange Format (AIF) are only concerned with capturing the Logos aspect. Inference Anchoring Theory (IAT) adds the possibility to represent ethical requirements on the illocutionary force edges linking locutions to illocutions, thereby allowing to capture some aspects of ethos. With the recent extensions AIF+ and Social Argument Interchange Format (S-AIF), which embed dialogue and speakers into the AIF argumentation representation, the basis for representing all three aspects identified by Aristotle was formed. In the present work, we develop the Trichotomic Argument Interchange Format (T-AIF), building on the idea from S-AIF of adding the speakers to the argumentation graph. We capture Logos in the usual known from AIF+, Ethos in form of weighted edges between actors representing trust, and Pathos via weighted edges from actors to illocutions representing their level of commitment to the propositions. This extended structured argumentation representation opens up new possibilities of defining semantic properties on this rich graph in order to characterize and profile the reasoning patterns of the participating actors.

One of NIST's research areas has been the quantification of Each team's system is faced with challenges such as The goal of ARIAC is to solidify the shown in figure 1. The organizers chose kitting field of robot agility, while also progressing the state because of its similarity to assembly. Teams were tasked with assembling a robotic system's (robot, controller, and sensors) ability kit both from bins of stationary parts and from a to respond to a dynamic environment. After the robotic system finished dynamic response includes handling errors like the kit, the kit was placed on an autonomous guided dropped parts or responding to changes in orders, all vehicle (AGV) and taken away. Teams were faced with such challenges as forced The competition addresses the aspect of robot dropped parts and in-process order changes.