A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

Classification of Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods through Their Output Formats

Machine and deep learning have proven their utility to generate data-driven models with high accuracy and precision. However, their non-linear, complex structures are often difficult to interpret. Consequently, many scholars have developed a plethora of methods to explain their functioning and the logic of their inferences. This systematic review aimed to organise these methods into a hierarchical classification system that builds upon and extends existing taxonomies by adding a significant dimension—the output formats. The reviewed scientific papers were retrieved by conducting an initial search on Google Scholar with the keywords “explainable artificial intelligence”; “explainable machine learning”; and “interpretable machine learning”. A subsequent iterative search was carried out by checking the bibliography of these articles. The addition of the dimension of the explanation format makes the proposed classification system a practical tool for scholars, supporting them to select the most suitable type of explanation format for the problem at hand. Given the wide variety of challenges faced by researchers, the existing XAI methods provide several solutions to meet the requirements that differ considerably between the users, problems and application fields of artificial intelligence (AI). The task of identifying the most appropriate explanation can be daunting, thus the need for a classification system that helps with the selection of methods. This work concludes by critically identifying the limitations of the formats of explanations and by providing recommendations and possible future research directions on how to build a more generally applicable XAI method. Future work should be flexible enough to meet the many requirements posed by the widespread use of AI in several fields, and the new regulation

An incremental explanation of inference in Bayesian networks for increasing model trustworthiness and supporting clinical decision making

Various AI models are increasingly being considered as part of clinical decision-support tools. However, the trustworthiness of such models is rarely considered. Clinicians are more likely to use a model if they can understand and trust its predictions. Key to this is if its underlying reasoning can be explained. A Bayesian network (BN) model has the advantage that it is not a black-box and its reasoning can be explained. In this paper, we propose an incremental explanation of inference that can be applied to ‘hybrid’ BNs, i.e. those that contain both discrete and continuous nodes. The key questions that we answer are: (1) which important evidence supports or contradicts the prediction, and (2) through which intermediate variables does the information flow. The explanation is illustrated using a real clinical case study. A small evaluation study is also conducted