Interactive explanation for planning-based systems: WIP abstract
Open accessAbstract
As Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs) become more autonomous, it becomes harder for humans who interact with the CPSs to understand the behavior of the systems. Particularly for CPSs that must perform tasks while optimizing for multiple quality objectives and acting under uncertainty, it can be difficult for humans to understand the system behavior generated by an automated planner. This work-in-progress presents an approach at clarifying system behavior through interactive explanation by allowing end-users to ask Why and Why-Not questions about specific behaviors of the system, and providing answers in the form of contrastive explanation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the context of XAI, an explanation for an automatic decision or prediction can be obtained abductively by attempting the search problem over the set of the known information concerning that observation.
“In the context of XAI, an explanation for an automatic decision or prediction, treated as an observation, can be obtained abductively by attempting the search problem over the set of the known information concerning that observation [50].”
From A Survey of Contrastive and Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 7 · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Vojtěch Forejt, Marta Kwiatkowska, Gethin Norman, and David Parker. 2011. Automated verification techniques for probabilistic systems. In International School on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Com- munication and Software Systems. Springer, 53-113.
- Jonathan Sprauel, Florent Teichteil-Königsbuch, and Andrey Kolobov. 2014. Saturated Path-constrained MDP: Planning Under Uncertainty and Deterministic Model-checking Constraints. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'14). AAAI Press, 2367-2373.
- Authors
- Zhao, E., & Sukkerd, R.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-04-16
- Pages
- 322-323
- OpenAlex
- W2926865809
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.67
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research (N00014172889)
- National Security Agency (H9823018D0008)
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-16-2-0042)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- interactive explanations, cyber-physical systems, contrastive explanations, why questions, multi-objective optimization, uncertainty, human-automation interaction, automated planning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
