Deep learning has taken by storm all fields involved in data analysis, including remote sensing for Earth observation. However, despite significant advances in terms of performance, its lack of explainability and interpretability, inherent to neural networks in general since their inception, remains a major source of criticism. Hence it comes as no surprise that the expansion of deep learning methods in remote sensing is being accompanied by increasingly intensive efforts oriented towards addressing this drawback through the exploration of a wide spectrum of Explainable Artificial Intelligence techniques. This chapter, organized according to prominent Earth observation application fields, presents a panorama of the state-of-the-art in explainable remote sensing image analysis.

In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots, i.e., underlying beliefs and world views, and their corresponding attitude themes. Given the strength of these latent drivers of arguments, recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning (e.g., falsifying given premises), one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu 'soft' combat system (Hornsey and Fielding, 2017): first, identify an arguer's attitude roots and themes, and then choose a prototypical rebuttal that is aligned with those drivers instead of invalidating those. In this work, we are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation. To this end, we enrich an existing dataset for discourse structure in peer reviews with attitude roots, attitude themes, and canonical rebuttals. To facilitate this process, we recast established annotation concepts from the domain of peer reviews (e.g., aspects a review sentence is relating to) and train domain-specific models. We then propose strong rebuttal generation strategies, which we benchmark on our novel dataset for the task of end-to-end attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation and two subtasks.

This study introduces the concept of "structural beauty" as an objective computational approach for evaluating the aesthetic appeal of images. Through the utilization of the Segment anything model (SAM), we propose a method that leverages recursive segmentation to extract finer-grained substructures. Additionally, by reconstructing the hierarchical structure, we obtain a more accurate representation of substructure quantity and hierarchy. This approach reproduces and extends our previous research, allowing for the simultaneous assessment of Livingness in full-color images without the need for grayscale conversion or separate computations for foreground and background Livingness. Furthermore, the application of our method to the Scenic or Not dataset, a repository of subjective scenic ratings, demonstrates a high degree of consistency with subjective ratings in the 0-6 score range. This underscores that structural beauty is not solely a subjective perception, but a quantifiable attribute accessible through objective computation. Through our case studies, we have arrived at three significant conclusions. 1) our method demonstrates the capability to accurately segment meaningful objects, including trees, buildings, and windows, as well as abstract substructures within paintings. 2) we observed that the clarity of an image impacts our computational results; clearer images tend to yield higher Livingness scores. However, for equally blurry images, Livingness does not exhibit a significant reduction, aligning with human visual perception. 3) our approach fundamentally differs from methods employing Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for predicting image scores. Our method not only provides computational results but also offers transparency and interpretability, positioning it as a novel avenue in the realm of Explainable AI (XAI).

Many annotation tasks in natural language processing are highly subjective in that there can be different valid and justified perspectives on what is a proper label for a given example. This also applies to the judgment of argument quality, where the assignment of a single ground truth is often questionable. At the same time, there are generally accepted concepts behind argumentation that form a common ground. To best represent the interplay of individual and shared perspectives, we consider a continuum of approaches ranging from models that fully aggregate perspectives into a majority label to "share nothing"-architectures in which each annotator is considered in isolation from all other annotators. In between these extremes, inspired by models used in the field of recommender systems, we investigate the extent to which architectures that include layers to model the relations between different annotators are beneficial for predicting single-annotator labels. By means of two tasks of argument quality classification (argument concreteness and validity/novelty of conclusions), we show that recommender architectures increase the averaged annotator-individual F$_1$-scores up to $43\%$ over a majority label model. Our findings indicate that approaches to subjectivity can benefit from relating individual perspectives.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to bridge the gap between complex algorithmic systems and human stakeholders. Current discourse often examines XAI in isolation as either a technological tool, user interface, or policy mechanism. This paper proposes a unifying ethical framework grounded in moral duties and the concept of reciprocity. We argue that XAI should be appreciated not merely as a right, but as part of our moral duties that helps sustain a reciprocal relationship between humans affected by AI systems. This is because, we argue, explanations help sustain constitutive symmetry and agency in AI-led decision-making processes. We then assess leading XAI communities and reveal gaps between the ideal of reciprocity and practical feasibility. Machine learning offers useful techniques but overlooks evaluation and adoption challenges. Human-computer interaction provides preliminary insights but oversimplifies organizational contexts. Policies espouse accountability but lack technical nuance. Synthesizing these views exposes barriers to implementable, ethical XAI. Still, positioning XAI as a moral duty transcends rights-based discourse to capture a more robust and complete moral picture. This paper provides an accessible, detailed analysis elucidating the moral value of explainability.

Predictive models used for AI-based decision support are generally not designed for transparency. Although they operate in critical situations such as, e.g., medicine or defence, they are limited to only presenting a probable outcome (David Gunning, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2016), which can lead to either misuse (based on user reliance being higher than appropriate) or disuse (due to users having less reliance than appropriate) (Alvarado-Valencia & Barrero, 2014; Buçinca et al., 2020). Due to the lack of transparency, predictions from this type of model often require an explanation. In explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), the goal is to create methods that help human users identify when to trust a prediction and when not to, such as an erroneous prediction in a medical diagnosis (Marx et al., 2023). An explanation should reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying model to communicate how they will behave in the future (David Gunning, 2017; Dimanov et al., 2020). There are two main categories of explanations: local explanations, which present information about the reasons for individual predictions, and global explanations, which provide information about the general behaviour of the model (Guidotti et al., 2018b; Moradi & Samwald, 2021; Martens & Foster, 2014).

As a result, many tasks that one would traditionally attribute to being done by a human being are being performed by machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) based models. Hence it is not surprising to see machine learning models being deployed in areas where historically, due to the nature of the tasks, it would require the involvement of a human, e.g., getting a loan/ receiving a bail judgment. Unfortunately, many of these state-of-the-art machine learning or artificial intelligence-based systems are so complex that we are unable to understand why they made such a decision. This lack of clarity contributes to such models being viewed as a black box whose content/logic is unknown. A natural consequence of the increasing involvement of machine learning models in decisionmaking processes is that these decisions either directly or indirectly impact individuals.

While a substantial amount of work has recently been devoted to enhance the performance of computational Authorship Identification (AId) systems, little to no attention has been paid to endowing AId systems with the ability to explain the reasons behind their predictions. This lacking substantially hinders the practical employment of AId methodologies, since the predictions returned by such systems are hardly useful unless they are supported with suitable explanations. In this paper, we explore the applicability of existing general-purpose eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques to AId, with a special focus on explanations addressed to scholars working in cultural heritage. In particular, we assess the relative merits of three different types of XAI techniques (feature ranking, probing, factuals and counterfactual selection) on three different AId tasks (authorship attribution, authorship verification, same-authorship verification) by running experiments on real AId data. Our analysis shows that, while these techniques make important first steps towards explainable Authorship Identification, more work remains to be done in order to provide tools that can be profitably integrated in the workflows of scholars.

Explaining the behaviour of intelligent agents learned by reinforcement learning (RL) to humans is challenging yet crucial due to their incomprehensible proprioceptive states, variational intermediate goals, and resultant unpredictability. Moreover, one-step explanations for RL agents can be ambiguous as they fail to account for the agent's future behaviour at each transition, adding to the complexity of explaining robot actions. By leveraging abstracted actions that map to task-specific primitives, we avoid explanations on the movement level. To further improve the transparency and explainability of robotic systems, we propose an explainable Q-Map learning framework that combines reward decomposition (RD) with abstracted action spaces, allowing for non-ambiguous and high-level explanations based on object properties in the task. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework through quantitative and qualitative analysis of two robotic scenarios, showcasing visual and textual explanations, from output artefacts of RD explanations, that are easy for humans to comprehend. Additionally, we demonstrate the versatility of integrating these artefacts with large language models (LLMs) for reasoning and interactive querying.

The growing attention to artificial intelligence-based applications has led to research interest in explainability issues. This emerging research attention on explainable AI (XAI) advocates the need to investigate end user-centric explainable AI. Thus, this study aims to investigate usercentric explainable AI and considered recommendation systems as the study context. We conducted focus group interviews to collect qualitative data on the recommendation system. We asked participants about the end users' comprehension of a recommended item, its probable explanation, and their opinion of making a recommendation explainable. Our findings reveal that end users want a non-technical and tailor-made explanation with on-demand supplementary information. Moreover, we also observed users requiring an explanation about personal data usage, detailed user feedback, and authentic and reliable explanations. Finally, we propose a synthesized framework that aims at involving the end user in the development process for requirements collection and validation.