As system complexity has vastly increased, it has become significantly more challenging for a single person or a team to fully understand all aspects of an entire system. Particularly, this holds when considering all the different stages of a system's development life cycle, such as, e.g., design or maintenance. But especially for safety-critical systems it is essential that the final design can be trusted. Because of this, explainability is becoming an important requirement for modern systems. In this paper, we aim to achieve this goal by utilizing Behavior-Driven Development (BDD), where the expected system behavior is given in the form of structured scenarios. These scenarios give a sequence of actions for each functionality, and by this can be directly translated into explanations. We introduce this method of deriving explanations based on the specification as Behavior-Driven Explainability (BDX). While applicable at any development stage or abstraction level, a case study for the explanation of exceptions in a RISC-V processor shows the support this concept adds during system design.
Autonomous robotic systems are being proposed for use in hazardous environments, often to reduce the risks to human workers. In the immediate future, it is likely that human workers will continue to use and direct these autonomous robots, much like other computerised tools but with more sophisticated decision-making. Therefore, one important area on which to focus engineering effort is ensuring that these users trust the system. Recent literature suggests that explainability is closely related to how trustworthy a system is. Like safety and security properties, explainability should be designed into a system, instead of being added afterwards. This paper presents an abstract architecture that supports an autonomous system explaining its behaviour (explainable autonomy), providing a design template for implementing explainable autonomous systems. We present a worked example of how our architecture could be applied in the civil nuclear industry, where both workers and regulators need to trust the system's decision-making capabilities.
Explainability has emerged as a critical requirement for AI-based systems, particularly in safety-critical and regulated domains. Although prior research has proposed frameworks, patterns, and user-centered approaches to support explainability, there is limited empirical understanding of how existing Requirements Engineering (RE) practices support explainability requirements across the RE lifecycle, especially in an industrial context. This paper reports early findings from an ongoing industry-based study investigating how explainability requirements are elicited, specified, and validated using established RE techniques. We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study with eight practitioners at Daimler Truck, employing think-aloud protocols and moderated group discussions across requirements elicitation, specification, and validation steps. Our preliminary analysis reveals recurring challenges across all steps, including conceptual ambiguity during elicitation, limited testability and expressiveness during specification, and fragmented validation due to vague criteria and regulatory uncertainty. These findings indicate that current RE practices provide limited support to systematically address explainability requirements. The paper contributes empirical insights into step-specific and cross-cutting challenges and outlines a research vision toward developing an empirically grounded RE framework for explainable AI-based systems.
We establish, from the point of view of Explainable AI (XAI), connections between Consistency-Based Diagnosis (CBD), on one side, and Actual Causality and Causal Responsibility, on the other. CBD has received little attention from the XAI community. Connections between these two areas could have a fruitful impact on XAI and Explainable Data Management.