Clash of the Explainers: Argumentation for Context-Appropriate Explanations
This addresses the challenge for AI practitioners and stakeholders in choosing effective explanations, though it is incremental as it builds on existing XAI and argumentation methods.
The paper tackles the problem of selecting the most appropriate explainable AI (XAI) technique for a given context by proposing a modular reasoning system that uses argumentation to map stakeholder characteristics to explanation techniques, resulting in a transparent method for prioritizing the best explainer.
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.