Decision trees are a popular machine learning method, known for their inherent explainability. In Explainable AI, decision trees can be used as surrogate models for complex black box AI models or as approximations of parts of such models. A key challenge of this approach is determining how accurately the extracted decision tree represents the original model and to what extent it can be trusted as an approximation of their behavior. In this work, we investigate the use of the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) framework to provide a theoretical guarantee of fidelity for decision trees extracted from AI models. Based on theoretical results from the PAC framework, we adapt a decision tree algorithm to ensure a PAC guarantee under certain conditions. We focus on binary classification and conduct experiments where we extract decision trees from BERT-based language models with PAC guarantees. Our results indicate occupational gender bias in these models.

This paper discusses the different roles that explicit knowledge, in particular ontologies, can play in Explainable AI and in the development of human-centric explainable systems and intelligible explanations. We consider three main perspectives in which ontologies can contribute significantly, namely reference modelling, common-sense reasoning, and knowledge refinement and complexity management. We overview some of the existing approaches in the literature, and we position them according to these three proposed perspectives. The paper concludes by discussing what challenges still need to be addressed to enable ontology-based approaches to explanation and to evaluate their human-understandability and effectiveness.

As systems based on opaque Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue to flourish in diverse real-world applications, understanding these black box models has become paramount. In response, Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged as a field of research with practical and ethical benefits across various domains. This paper not only highlights the advancements in XAI and its application in real-world scenarios but also addresses the ongoing challenges within XAI, emphasizing the need for broader perspectives and collaborative efforts. We bring together experts from diverse fields to identify open problems, striving to synchronize research agendas and accelerate XAI in practical applications. By fostering collaborative discussion and interdisciplinary cooperation, we aim to propel XAI forward, contributing to its continued success. Our goal is to put forward a comprehensive proposal for advancing XAI. To achieve this goal, we present a manifesto of 27 open problems categorized into nine categories. These challenges encapsulate the complexities and nuances of XAI and offer a road map for future research. For each problem, we provide promising research directions in the hope of harnessing the collective intelligence of interested stakeholders.

Explainability in Artificial Intelligence has been revived as a topic of active research by the need of conveying safety and trust to users in the `how' and `why' of automated decision-making. Whilst a plethora of approaches have been developed for post-hoc explainability, only a few focus on how to use domain knowledge, and how this influences the understandability of an explanation from the users' perspective. In this paper we show how ontologies help the understandability of interpretable machine learning models, such as decision trees. In particular, we build on Trepan, an algorithm that explains artificial neural networks by means of decision trees, and we extend it to include ontologies modeling domain knowledge in the process of generating explanations. We present the results of a user study that measures the understandability of decision trees in domains where explanations are critical, namely, in finance and medicine. Our study shows that decision trees taking into account domain knowledge during generation are more understandable than those generated without the use of ontologies.

Ontology engineering is a hard and error-prone task, in which small changes may lead to errors, or even produce an inconsistent ontology. As ontologies grow in size, the need for automated methods for repairing inconsistencies while preserving as much of the original knowledge as possible increases. Most previous approaches to this task are based on removing a few axioms from the ontology to regain consistency. We propose a new method based on weakening these axioms to make them less restrictive, employing the use of refinement operators. We introduce the theoretical framework for weakening DL ontologies, propose algorithms to repair ontologies based on the framework, and provide an analysis of the computational complexity. Through an empirical analysis made over real-life ontologies, we show that our approach preserves significantly more of the original knowledge of the ontology than removing axioms.