This article introduces a framework that is meant to assist in mitigating societal risks that software can pose. Concretely, this encompasses facets of software doping as well as unfairness and discrimination in high-risk decision-making systems. The term software doping refers to software that contains surreptitiously added functionality that is against the interest of the user. A prominent example of software doping are the tampered emission cleaning systems that were found in millions of cars around the world when the diesel emissions scandal surfaced. The first part of this article combines the formal foundations of software doping analysis with established probabilistic falsification techniques to arrive at a black-box analysis technique for identifying undesired effects of software. We apply this technique to emission cleaning systems in diesel cars but also to high-risk systems that evaluate humans in a possibly unfair or discriminating way. We demonstrate how our approach can assist humans-in-the-loop to make better informed and more responsible decisions. This is to promote effective human oversight, which will be a central requirement enforced by the European Union's upcoming AI Act. We complement our technical contribution with a juridically, philosophically, and psychologically informed perspective on the potential problems caused by such systems.

Bayesian networks (BNs) are a probabilistic graphical model widely used for representing expert knowledge and reasoning under uncertainty. Traditionally, they are based on directed acyclic graphs that capture dependencies between random variables. However, directed cycles can naturally arise when cross-dependencies between random variables exist, e.g., for modeling feedback loops. Existing methods to deal with such cross-dependencies usually rely on reductions to BNs without cycles. These approaches are fragile to generalize, since their justifications are intermingled with additional knowledge about the application context. In this paper, we present a foundational study regarding semantics for cyclic BNs that are generic and conservatively extend the cycle-free setting. First, we propose constraint-based semantics that specify requirements for full joint distributions over a BN to be consistent with the local conditional probabilities and independencies. Second, two kinds of limit semantics that formalize infinite unfolding approaches are introduced and shown to be computable by a Markov chain construction.

Abstract argumentation is a prominent reasoning framework. It comes with a variety of semantics and has lately been enhanced by probabilities to enable a quantitative treatment of argumentation. While admissibility is a fundamental notion for classical reasoning in abstract argumentation frameworks, it has barely been reflected so far in the probabilistic setting. In this paper, we address the quantitative treatment of abstract argumentation based on probabilistic notions of admissibility. Our approach follows the natural idea of defining probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation by systematically imposing constraints on the joint probability distribution on the sets of arguments, rather than on probabilities of single arguments. As a result, there might be either a uniquely defined distribution satisfying the constraints, but also none, many, or even an infinite number of satisfying distributions are possible. We provide probabilistic semantics corresponding to the classical complete and stable semantics and show how labeling schemes provide a bridge from distributions back to argument labelings. In relation to existing work on probabilistic argumentation, we present a taxonomy of semantic notions. Enabled by the constraint-based approach, standard reasoning problems for probabilistic semantics can be tackled by SMT solvers, as we demonstrate by a proof-of-concept implementation.

Previous research in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) suggests that a main aim of explainability approaches is to satisfy specific interests, goals, expectations, needs, and demands regarding artificial systems (we call these stakeholders' desiderata) in a variety of contexts. However, the literature on XAI is vast, spreads out across multiple largely disconnected disciplines, and it often remains unclear how explainability approaches are supposed to achieve the goal of satisfying stakeholders' desiderata. This paper discusses the main classes of stakeholders calling for explainability of artificial systems and reviews their desiderata. We provide a model that explicitly spells out the main concepts and relations necessary to consider and investigate when evaluating, adjusting, choosing, and developing explainability approaches that aim to satisfy stakeholders' desiderata. This model can serve researchers from the variety of different disciplines involved in XAI as a common ground. It emphasizes where there is interdisciplinary potential in the evaluation and the development of explainability approaches.

Markov decision processes are of major interest in the planning community as well as in the model checking community. But in spite of the similarity in the considered formal models, the development of new techniques and methods happened largely independently in both communities. This work is intended as a beginning to unite the two research branches. We consider goal-reachability analysis as a common basis between both communities. The core of this paper is the translation from Jani, an overarching input language for quantitative model checkers, into the probabilistic planning domain definition language (PPDDL), and vice versa from PPDDL into Jani. These translations allow the creation of an overarching benchmark collection, including existing case studies from the model checking community, as well as benchmarks from the international probabilistic planning competitions (IPPC). We use this benchmark set as a basis for an extensive empirical comparison of various approaches from the model checking community, variants of value iteration, and MDP heuristic search algorithms developed by the AI planning community. On a per benchmark domain basis, techniques from one community can achieve state-ofthe-art performance in benchmarks of the other community. Across all benchmark domains of one community, the performance comparison is however in favor of the solvers and algorithms of that particular community. Reasons are the design of the benchmarks, as well as tool-related limitations. Our translation methods and benchmark collection foster crossfertilization between both communities, pointing out specific opportunities for widening the scope of solvers to different kinds of models, as well as for exchanging and adopting algorithms across communities.

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

It has previously been observed that the verification of safety properties in deterministic model-checking frameworks can be compiled into classical planning. A similar connection exists between goal probability analysis on either side, yet that connection has not been explored. We fill that gap with a translation from Jani, an input language for quantitative model checkers including the Modest toolset and PRISM, into PPDDL. Our experiments motivate further cross-fertilization between both research areas, specifically the exchange of algorithms. Our study also initiates the creation of new benchmarks for goal probability analysis.