Autonomous driving has achieved a significant milestone in research and development over the last decade. There is increasing interest in the field as the deployment of self-operating vehicles on roads promises safer and more ecologically friendly transportation systems. With the rise of computationally powerful artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, autonomous vehicles can sense their environment with high precision, make safe real-time decisions, and operate more reliably without human interventions. However, intelligent decision-making in autonomous cars is not generally understandable by humans in the current state of the art, and such deficiency hinders this technology from being socially acceptable. Hence, aside from making safe real-time decisions, the AI systems of autonomous vehicles also need to explain how these decisions are constructed in order to be regulatory compliant across many jurisdictions. Our study sheds a comprehensive light on developing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) approaches for autonomous vehicles. In particular, we make the following contributions. First, we provide a thorough overview of the present gaps with respect to explanations in the state-of-the-art autonomous vehicle industry. We then show the taxonomy of explanations and explanation receivers in this field. Thirdly, we propose a framework for an architecture of end-to-end autonomous driving systems and justify the role of XAI in both debugging and regulating such systems. Finally, as future research directions, we provide a field guide on XAI approaches for autonomous driving that can improve operational safety and transparency towards achieving public approval by regulators, manufacturers, and all engaged stakeholders.

There has been growing interest in the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles on modern road networks over the last few years, encouraged by the empirical successes of powerful artificial intelligence approaches (AI), especially in the applications of deep and reinforcement learning. However, there have been several road accidents with ``autonomous'' cars that prevent this technology from being publicly acceptable at a wider level. As AI is the main driving force behind the intelligent navigation systems of such vehicles, both the stakeholders and transportation jurisdictions require their AI-driven software architecture to be safe, explainable, and regulatory compliant. We present a framework that integrates autonomous control, explainable AI architecture, and regulatory compliance to address this issue and further provide several conceptual models from this perspective, to help guide future research directions.

We focus on exploring various approaches of Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) and their explainability for a challenging yet important supervised learning task notorious for training data scarcity, i.e. Depression Symptoms Detection (DSD) from text. We start with a comprehensive synthesis of different components of our ZSL modeling and analysis of our ground truth samples and Depression symptom clues curation process with the help of a practicing clinician. We next analyze the accuracy of various state-of-the-art ZSL models and their potential enhancements for our task. Further, we sketch a framework for the use of ZSL for hierarchical text-based explanation mechanism, which we call, Syntax Tree-Guided Semantic Explanation (STEP). Finally, we summarize experiments from which we conclude that we can use ZSL models and achieve reasonable accuracy and explainability, measured by a proposed Explainability Index (EI). This work is, to our knowledge, the first work to exhaustively explore the efficacy of ZSL models for DSD task, both in terms of accuracy and explainability.

We choose our basic emotions from a hybrid emotion model consisting of the common emotions from four highly regarded psychological models of emotions. Moreover, we augment that emotion model with new emotion categories because of their importance in the analysis of depression. Most of those additional emotions have not been used in previous emotion mining research. Our experimental analyses show that a cost sensitive RankSVM algorithm and a Deep Learning model are both robust, measured by both Macro F-measures and Micro F-measures. This suggests that these algorithms are superior in addressing the widely known data imbalance problem in multi-label learning. Moreover, our application of Deep Learning performs the best, giving it an edge in modeling deep semantic features of our extended emotional categories.

Duplicate question detection is an ongoing challenge in community question answering because semantically equivalent questions can have significantly different words and structures. In addition, the identification of duplicate questions can reduce the resources required for retrieval, when the same questions are not repeated. This study compares the performance of deep neural networks and gradient tree boosting, and explores the possibility of domain adaptation with transfer learning to improve the under-performing target domains for the text-pair duplicates classification task, using three heterogeneous datasets: general-purpose Quora, technical Ask Ubuntu, and academic English Stack Exchange. Ultimately, our study exposes the alternative hypothesis that the meaning of a "duplicate" is not inherently general-purpose, but rather is dependent on the domain of learning, hence reducing the chance of transfer learning through adapting to the domain.

The practical impact of deep learning on complex supervised learning problems has been significant, so much so that almost every Artificial Intelligence problem, or at least a portion thereof, has been somehow recast as a deep learning problem. The applications appeal is significant, but this appeal is increasingly challenged by what some call the challenge of explainability, or more generally the more traditional challenge of debuggability: if the outcomes of a deep learning process produce unexpected results (e.g., less than expected performance of a classifier), then there is little available in the way of theories or tools to help investigate the potential causes of such unexpected behavior, especially when this behavior could impact people's lives. We describe a preliminary framework to help address this issue, which we call "deep visual explanation" (DVE). "Deep," because it is the development and performance of deep neural network models that we want to understand. "Visual," because we believe that the most rapid insight into a complex multi-dimensional model is provided by appropriate visualization techniques, and "Explanation," because in the spectrum from instrumentation by inserting print statements to the abductive inference of explanatory hypotheses, we believe that the key to understanding deep learning relies on the identification and exposure of hypotheses about the performance behavior of a learned deep model. In the exposition of our preliminary framework, we use relatively straightforward image classification examples and a variety of choices on initial configuration of a deep model building scenario. By careful but not complicated instrumentation, we expose classification outcomes of deep models using visualization, and also show initial results for one potential application of interpretability.

We present a method for explaining the image classification predictions of deep convolution neural networks, by highlighting the pixels in the image which influence the final class prediction. Our method requires the identification of a heuristic method to select parameters hypothesized to be most relevant in this prediction, and here we use Kullback-Leibler divergence to provide this focus. Overall, our approach helps in understanding and interpreting deep network predictions and we hope contributes to a foundation for such understanding of deep learning networks. In this brief paper, our experiments evaluate the performance of two popular networks in this context of interpretability.

We propose an abductive diagnosis theory that integrates probabilistic, causal and taxonomic knowledge. Probabilistic knowledge allows us to select the most likely explanation; causal knowledge allows us to make reasonable independence assumptions; taxonomic knowledge allows causation to be modeled at different levels of detail, and allows observations be described in different levels of precision. Unlike most other approaches where a causal explanation is a hypothesis that one or more causative events occurred, we define an explanation of a set of observations to be an occurrence of a chain of causation events. These causation events constitute a scenario where all the observations are true. We show that the probabilities of the scenarios can be computed from the conditional probabilities of the causation events. Abductive reasoning is inherently complex even if only modest expressive power is allowed. However, our abduction algorithm is exponential only in the number of observations to be explained, and is polynomial in the size of the knowledge base. This contrasts with many other abduction procedures that are exponential in the size of the knowledge base.

The Fourth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (ISAI) was held in Cancun, Mexico, 13-15 November 1991. What, another international AI conference, you say? The first symposium was held in 1988. This fourth consecutive annual conference drew the participation of visitors from several international AI communities, including the United States, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Japan, England, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, China, Belgium, Australia, and Singapore -- an impressive breadth of participants for a conference that has existed for only four years.

The Fourth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (ISAI) was held in Cancun, Mexico, 13-15 November 1991. What, another international AI conference, you say? In Mexico? Yes. The first symposium was held in 1988. This fourth consecutive annual conference drew the participation of visitors from several international AI communities, including the United States, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Japan, England, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, China, Belgium, Australia, and Singapore -- an impressive breadth of participants for a conference that has existed for only four years.