From its inception, AI has had a rather ambivalent relationship with humans -- swinging between their augmentation and replacement. Now, as AI technologies enter our everyday lives at an ever increasing pace, there is a greater need for AI systems to work synergistically with humans. One critical requirement for such synergistic human-AI interaction is that the AI systems be explainable to the humans in the loop. To do this effectively, AI agents need to go beyond planning with their own models of the world, and take into account the mental model of the human in the loop. Drawing from several years of research in our lab, we will discuss how the AI agent can use these mental models to either conform to human expectations, or change those expectations through explanatory communication. While the main focus of the book is on cooperative scenarios, we will point out how the same mental models can be used for obfuscation and deception. Although the book is primarily driven by our own research in these areas, in every chapter, we will provide ample connections to relevant research from other groups.

As deep neural models in NLP become more complex, and as a consequence opaque, the necessity to interpret them becomes greater. A burgeoning interest has emerged in rationalizing explanations to provide short and coherent justifications for predictions. In this position paper, we advocate for a formal framework for key concepts and properties about rationalizing explanations to support their evaluation systematically. We also outline one such formal framework, tailored to rationalizing explanations of increasingly complex structures, from free-form explanations to deductive explanations, to argumentative explanations (with the richest structure). Focusing on the automated fact verification task, we provide illustrations of the use and usefulness of our formalization for evaluating explanations, tailored to their varying structures.

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.

A traditional assurance case employs a positive argument in which reasoning steps, grounded on evidence and assumptions, sustain a top claim that has external significance. Human judgement is required to check the evidence, the assumptions, and the narrative justifications for the reasoning steps; if all are assessed good, then the top claim can be accepted. A valid concern about this process is that human judgement is fallible and prone to confirmation bias. The best defense against this concern is vigorous and skeptical debate and discussion in the manner of a dialectic or Socratic dialog. There is merit in recording aspects of this discussion for the benefit of subsequent developers and assessors. Defeaters are a means doing this: they express doubts about aspects of the argument and can be developed into subcases that confirm or refute the doubts, and can record them as documentation to assist future consideration. This report describes how defeaters, and multiple levels of defeaters, should be represented and assessed in Assurance 2.0 and its Clarissa/ASCE tool support. These mechanisms also support eliminative argumentation, which is a contrary approach to assurance, favored by some, that uses a negative argument to refute all reasons why the top claim could be false.

The evolution of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emphasised the significance of meeting diverse user needs. The approaches to identifying and addressing these needs must also advance, recognising that explanation experiences are subjective, user-centred processes that interact with users towards a better understanding of AI decision-making. This paper delves into the interrelations in multi-faceted XAI and examines how different types of explanations collaboratively meet users' XAI needs. We introduce the Intent Fulfilment Framework (IFF) for creating explanation experiences. The novelty of this paper lies in recognising the importance of "follow-up" on explanations for obtaining clarity, verification and/or substitution. Moreover, the Explanation Experience Dialogue Model integrates the IFF and "Explanation Followups" to provide users with a conversational interface for exploring their explanation needs, thereby creating explanation experiences. Quantitative and qualitative findings from our comparative user study demonstrate the impact of the IFF in improving user engagement, the utility of the AI system and the overall user experience. Overall, we reinforce the principle that "one explanation does not fit all" to create explanation experiences that guide the complex interaction through conversation.

Explaining deep learning models operating on time series data is crucial in various applications of interest which require interpretable and transparent insights from time series signals. In this work, we investigate this problem from an information theoretic perspective and show that most existing measures of explainability may suffer from trivial solutions and distributional shift issues. To address these issues, we introduce a simple yet practical objective function for time series explainable learning. The design of the objective function builds upon the principle of information bottleneck (IB), and modifies the IB objective function to avoid trivial solutions and distributional shift issues. We further present TimeX++, a novel explanation framework that leverages a parametric network to produce explanation-embedded instances that are both in-distributed and label-preserving. We evaluate TimeX++ on both synthetic and real-world datasets comparing its performance against leading baselines, and validate its practical efficacy through case studies in a real-world environmental application. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations show that TimeX++ outperforms baselines across all datasets, demonstrating a substantial improvement in explanation quality for time series data. The source code is available at \url{https://github.com/zichuan-liu/TimeXplusplus}.

In the quest for accurate and interpretable AI models, eXplainable AI (XAI) has become crucial. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs) stand out as an advanced XAI method because of their ability to synergistically combine and exploit both expert knowledge and data-driven insights, providing transparency and intrinsic interpretability. This letter introduces and investigates the "Total Causal Effect Calculation for FCMs" (TCEC-FCM) algorithm, an innovative approach that, for the first time, enables the efficient calculation of total causal effects among concepts in large-scale FCMs by leveraging binary search and graph traversal techniques, thereby overcoming the challenge of exhaustive causal path exploration that hinder existing methods. We evaluate the proposed method across various synthetic FCMs that demonstrate TCEC-FCM's superior performance over exhaustive methods, marking a significant advancement in causal effect analysis within FCMs, thus broadening their usability for modern complex XAI applications.

Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media / Better Images of AI / Data is a Mirror of Us / Licenced by CC-BY 4.0 Humans are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to inform decisions about our lives. AI is, for instance, helping to make hiring choices and offer medical diagnoses. If you were affected, you might want an explanation of why an AI system produced the decision it did. Yet AI systems are often so computationally complex that not even their designers fully know how the decisions were produced. That's why the development of "explainable AI" (or XAI) is booming.

In recent years, there has been a lot of research in artificial intelligence, focusing on leveraging argumentation theory for non-monotonic reasoning [1, 2]. Starting with Dung's seminal work [3], many researchers have considered abstract argumentation frameworks, composed of a set of arguments and a binary attack relation between them, and created many semantics for tasks such as computing accepted sets of arguments [4, 5] or rank arguments [6, 7, 8]. This abstract argumentation framework was extended with many features such as supports [9, 10, 11], sets of attacking arguments [12, 13], or probabilities [14] among others. However, one important question that remained was: "Where do argumentation frameworks come from in real-life settings?". While there are some pieces of evidence that the fundamental aspects of abstract argumentation frameworks have links with human reasoning [15, 16], humans debates or natural language texts are not always written as arguments and the relation between arguments is not always clear, even for experts [17]. The question of the origin of argumentation frameworks is crucial to facilitate the application of argumentation theory semantics in real-world contexts.

With the digitalization of health care systems, artificial intelligence becomes more present in medicine. Especially machine learning shows great potential for complex tasks such as time series classification, usually at the cost of transparency and comprehensibility. This leads to a lack of trust by humans and thus hinders its active usage. Explainable artificial intelligence tries to close this gap by providing insight into the decision-making process, the actual usefulness of its different methods is however unclear. This paper proposes a user study based evaluation of the explanation method Grad-CAM with application to a neural network for the classification of breaths in time series neonatal ventilation data. We present the perceived usefulness of the explainability method by different stakeholders, exposing the difficulty to achieve actual transparency and the wish for more in-depth explanations by many of the participants.