The increasing applications of AI systems require personalized explanations for their behaviors to various stakeholders since the stakeholders may have various knowledge and backgrounds. In general, a conversation between explainers and explainees not only allows explainers to obtain the explainees' background, but also allows explainees to better understand the explanations. In this paper, we propose an approach for an explainer to communicate personalized explanations to an explainee through having consecutive conversations with the explainee. We prove that the conversation terminates due to the explainee's justification of the initial claim as long as there exists an explanation for the initial claim that the explainee understands and the explainer is aware of.

With the advent of Deep Learning, the field of machine learning (ML) has surpassed human-level performance on diverse classification tasks. At the same time, there is a stark need to characterize and quantify reliability of a model's prediction on individual samples. This is especially true in application of such models in safety-critical domains of industrial control and healthcare. To address this need, we link the question of reliability of a model's individual prediction to the epistemic uncertainty of the model's prediction. More specifically, we extend the theory of Justified True Belief (JTB) in epistemology, created to study the validity and limits of human-acquired knowledge, towards characterizing the validity and limits of knowledge in supervised classifiers. We present an analysis of neural network classifiers linking the reliability of its prediction on an input to characteristics of the support gathered from the input and latent spaces of the network. We hypothesize that the JTB analysis exposes the epistemic uncertainty (or ignorance) of a model with respect to its inference, thereby allowing for the inference to be only as strong as the justification permits. We explore various forms of support (for e.g., k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) and l_p-norm based) generated for an input, using the training data to construct a justification for the prediction with that input. Through experiments conducted on simulated and real datasets, we demonstrate that our approach can provide reliability for individual predictions and characterize regions where such reliability cannot be ascertained.

The paper addresses how the information state of an agent relates to the arguments that the agent endorses. Information states are modeled in doxastic logic and arguments by recasting abstract argumentation theory in a modal logic format. The two perspectives are combined by an application of the theory of product logics, delivering sound and complete systems in which the interaction of arguments and beliefs is investigated.