Autonomous business processes (ABPs), i.e., self-executing workflows leveraging AI/ML, have the potential to improve operational efficiency, reduce errors, lower costs, improve response times, and free human workers for more strategic and creative work. However, ABPs may raise specific concerns including decreased stakeholder trust, difficulties in debugging, hindered accountability, risk of bias, and issues with regulatory compliance. We argue for eXplainable ABPs (XABPs) to address these concerns by enabling systems to articulate their rationale. The paper outlines a systematic approach to XABPs, characterizing their forms, structuring explainability, and identifying key BPM research challenges towards XABPs.

The ability to generate explanations that are understood by explainees is the quintessence of explainable artificial intelligence. Since understanding depends on the explainee's background and needs, recent research focused on co-constructive explanation dialogues, where an explainer continuously monitors the explainee's understanding and adapts their explanations dynamically. We investigate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to engage as explainers in co-constructive explanation dialogues. In particular, we present a user study in which explainees interact with an LLM in two settings, one of which involves the LLM being instructed to explain a topic co-constructively. We evaluate the explainees' understanding before and after the dialogue, as well as their perception of the LLMs' co-constructive behavior. Our results suggest that LLMs show some co-constructive behaviors, such as asking verification questions, that foster the explainees' engagement and can improve understanding of a topic. However, their ability to effectively monitor the current understanding and scaffold the explanations accordingly remains limited.

Adapting to the addressee is crucial for successful explanations, yet poses significant challenges for dialogsystems. We adopt the approach of treating explanation generation as a non-stationary decision process, where the optimal strategy varies according to changing beliefs about the explainee and the interaction context. In this paper we address the questions of (1) how to track the interaction context and the relevant listener features in a formally defined computational partner model, and (2) how to utilize this model in the dynamically adjusted, rational decision process that determines the currently best explanation strategy. We propose a Bayesian inference-based approach to continuously update the partner model based on user feedback, and a non-stationary Markov Decision Process to adjust decision-making based on the partner model values. We evaluate an implementation of this framework with five simulated interlocutors, demonstrating its effectiveness in adapting to different partners with constant and even changing feedback behavior. The results show high adaptivity with distinct explanation strategies emerging for different partners, highlighting the potential of our approach to improve explainable AI systems and dialogsystems in general.

In human-AI interactions, explanation is widely seen as necessary for enabling trust in AI systems. We argue that trust, however, may be a pre-requisite because explanation is sometimes impossible. We derive this result from a formalization of explanation as a search process through knowledge networks, where explainers must find paths between shared concepts and the concept to be explained, within finite time. Our model reveals that explanation can fail even under theoretically ideal conditions - when actors are rational, honest, motivated, can communicate perfectly, and possess overlapping knowledge. This is because successful explanation requires not just the existence of shared knowledge but also finding the connection path within time constraints, and it can therefore be rational to cease attempts at explanation before the shared knowledge is discovered. This result has important implications for human-AI interaction: as AI systems, particularly Large Language Models, become more sophisticated and able to generate superficially compelling but spurious explanations, humans may default to trust rather than demand genuine explanations. This creates risks of both misplaced trust and imperfect knowledge integration.

Explanations form the foundation of knowledge sharing and build upon communication principles, social dynamics, and learning theories. We focus specifically on conversational approaches for explanations because the context is highly adaptive and interactive. Our research leverages previous work on explanatory acts, a framework for understanding the different strategies that explainers and explainees employ in a conversation to both explain, understand, and engage with the other party. We use the 5-Levels dataset was constructed from the WIRED YouTube series by Wachsmuth et al., and later annotated by Booshehri et al. with explanatory acts. These annotations provide a framework for understanding how explainers and explainees structure their response when crafting a response. With the rise of generative AI in the past year, we hope to better understand the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and how they can augment expert explainer's capabilities in conversational settings. To achieve this goal, the 5-Levels dataset (We use Booshehri et al.'s 2023 annotated dataset with explanatory acts.) allows us to audit the ability of LLMs in engaging in explanation dialogues. To evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in generating explainer responses, we compared 3 different strategies, we asked human annotators to evaluate 3 different strategies: human explainer response, GPT4 standard response, GPT4 response with Explanation Moves.

Despite significant progress, evaluation of explainable artificial intelligence remains elusive and challenging. In this paper we propose a fine-grained validation framework that is not overly reliant on any one facet of these sociotechnical systems, and that recognises their inherent modular structure: technical building blocks, user-facing explanatory artefacts and social communication protocols. While we concur that user studies are invaluable in assessing the quality and effectiveness of explanation presentation and delivery strategies from the explainees' perspective in a particular deployment context, the underlying explanation generation mechanisms require a separate, predominantly algorithmic validation strategy that accounts for the technical and human-centred desiderata of their (numerical) outputs. Such a comprehensive sociotechnical utility-based evaluation framework could allow to systematically reason about the properties and downstream influence of different building blocks from which explainable artificial intelligence systems are composed -- accounting for a diverse range of their engineering and social aspects -- in view of the anticipated use case.

Explanations are pervasive in our lives. Mostly, they occur in dialogical form where an explainer discusses a concept or phenomenon of interest with an explainee. Leaving the explainee with a clear understanding is not straightforward due to the knowledge gap between the two participants. Previous research looked at the interaction of explanation moves, dialogue acts, and topics in successful dialogues with expert explainers. However, daily-life explanations often fail, raising the question of what makes a dialogue successful. In this work, we study explanation dialogues in terms of the interactions between the explainer and explainee and how they correlate with the quality of explanations in terms of a successful understanding on the explainee's side. In particular, we first construct a corpus of 399 dialogues from the Reddit forum Explain Like I am Five and annotate it for interaction flows and explanation quality. We then analyze the interaction flows, comparing them to those appearing in expert dialogues. Finally, we encode the interaction flows using two language models that can handle long inputs, and we provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness boost gained through the encoding in predicting the success of explanation dialogues.

Understanding when and why to apply any given eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique is not a straightforward task. There is no single approach that is best suited for a given context. This paper aims to address the challenge of selecting the most appropriate explainer given the context in which an explanation is required. For AI explainability to be effective, explanations and how they are presented needs to be oriented towards the stakeholder receiving the explanation. If -- in general -- no single explanation technique surpasses the rest, then reasoning over the available methods is required in order to select one that is context-appropriate. Due to the transparency they afford, we propose employing argumentation techniques to reach an agreement over the most suitable explainers from a given set of possible explainers. In this paper, we propose a modular reasoning system consisting of a given mental model of the relevant stakeholder, a reasoner component that solves the argumentation problem generated by a multi-explainer component, and an AI model that is to be explained suitably to the stakeholder of interest. By formalising supporting premises -- and inferences -- we can map stakeholder characteristics to those of explanation techniques. This allows us to reason over the techniques and prioritise the best one for the given context, while also offering transparency into the selection decision.

In some areas such as the medical field, ML-assisted predictions or decisions can drastically impact human life. For example, breast cancer [131] can be devastating if not diagnosed in time (or at all). The use of black-box predictors in these crucial cases has deceived more than once: a classical example of which is the use of the COMPAS system by the USA judiciary system for predicting criminal recidivism [133]. Other cases where fairness has been jeopardized by the use of black-boxes are numerous: job and loan applications biased toward men [40]; mortgage-approval biased toward white applicants [122]; higher credit card limits for men [172]; etc. With time, it became clear that interpretability is crucial when it comes to understanding how a predictor behaves and thus preventing unfortunate events; as pointed out by Goodman and Flaxman [70]: "If we do not know how ML [predictors] work, we cannot check or regulate them to ensure that they do not encode discrimination against minorities [...], we will not be able to learn from instances in which it is mistaken."

Explainability has become an important topic in computer science and artificial intelligence, leading to a subfield called Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). The goal of providing or seeking explanations is to achieve (better) 'understanding' on the part of the explainee. However, what it means to 'understand' is still not clearly defined, and the concept itself is rarely the subject of scientific investigation. This conceptual article aims to present a model of forms of understanding in the context of XAI and beyond. From an interdisciplinary perspective bringing together computer science, linguistics, sociology, and psychology, a definition of understanding and its forms, assessment, and dynamics during the process of giving everyday explanations are explored. Two types of understanding are considered as possible outcomes of explanations, namely enabledness, 'knowing how' to do or decide something, and comprehension, 'knowing that' -- both in different degrees (from shallow to deep). Explanations regularly start with shallow understanding in a specific domain and can lead to deep comprehension and enabledness of the explanandum, which we see as a prerequisite for human users to gain agency. In this process, the increase of comprehension and enabledness are highly interdependent. Against the background of this systematization, special challenges of understanding in XAI are discussed.