TRACE-cs: Trustworthy Reasoning for Contrastive Explanations in Course Scheduling Problems

We present TRACE-cs, a novel hybrid system that combines symbolic reasoning with large language models (LLMs) to address contrastive queries in scheduling problems. TRACE-cs leverages SAT solving techniques to encode scheduling constraints and generate explanations for user queries, while utilizing an LLM to process the user queries into logical clauses as well as refine the explanations generated by the symbolic solver to natural language sentences. By integrating these components, our approach demonstrates the potential of combining symbolic methods with LLMs to create explainable AI agents with correctness guarantees.

On the Utility of Accounting for Human Beliefs about AI Behavior in Human-AI Collaboration

To enable effective human-AI collaboration, merely optimizing AI performance while ignoring humans is not sufficient. Recent research has demonstrated that designing AI agents to account for human behavior leads to improved performance in human-AI collaboration. However, a limitation of most existing approaches is their assumption that human behavior is static, irrespective of AI behavior. In reality, humans may adjust their action plans based on their observations of AI behavior. In this paper, we address this limitation by enabling a collaborative AI agent to consider the beliefs of its human partner, i.e., what the human partner thinks the AI agent is doing, and design its action plan to facilitate easier collaboration with its human partner. Specifically, we developed a model of human beliefs that accounts for how humans reason about the behavior of their AI partners. Based on this belief model, we then developed an AI agent that considers both human behavior and human beliefs in devising its strategy for working with humans. Through extensive real-world human-subject experiments, we demonstrated that our belief model more accurately predicts humans' beliefs about AI behavior. Moreover, we showed that our design of AI agents that accounts for human beliefs enhances performance in human-AI collaboration.

On Generating Monolithic and Model Reconciling Explanations in Probabilistic Scenarios

Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems' decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. Monolithic explanations provide self-contained reasons for an explanandum without considering the agent receiving the explanation, while model reconciling explanations account for the knowledge of the agent receiving the explanation. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models, where the goal is to find explanations that increase the probability of the explanandum while minimizing conflicts between the explanation and the probabilistic human model. We introduce explanatory gain and explanatory power as quantitative metrics to assess the quality of these explanations. Further, we present algorithms that exploit the duality between minimal correction sets and minimal unsatisfiable sets to efficiently compute both types of explanations in probabilistic contexts. Extensive experimental evaluations on various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach in generating explanations under uncertainty.

Explanation-based Belief Revision: Moving Beyond Minimalism to Explanatory Understanding

In belief revision, agents typically modify their beliefs when they receive some new piece of information that is in conflict with them. The guiding principle behind most belief revision frameworks is that of minimalism, which advocates minimal changes to existing beliefs. However, minimalism may not necessarily capture the nuanced ways in which human agents reevaluate and modify their beliefs. In contrast, the explanatory hypothesis indicates that people are inherently driven to seek explanations for inconsistencies, thereby striving for explanatory coherence rather than minimal changes when revising beliefs. Our contribution in this paper is two-fold. Motivated by the explanatory hypothesis, we first present a novel, yet simple belief revision operator that, given a belief base and an explanation for an explanandum, it revises the belief bases in a manner that preserves the explanandum and is not necessarily minimal. We call this operator explanation-based belief revision. Second, we conduct two human-subject studies to empirically validate our approach and investigate belief revision behavior in real-world scenarios. Our findings support the explanatory hypothesis and provide insights into the strategies people employ when resolving inconsistencies.

Approximating Human Models During Argumentation-based Dialogues

Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) aims to develop AI agents that can effectively explain their decisions and actions to human users, fostering trust and facilitating human-AI collaboration. A key challenge in XAIP is model reconciliation, which seeks to align the mental models of AI agents and humans. While existing approaches often assume a known and deterministic human model, this simplification may not capture the complexities and uncertainties of real-world interactions. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic human model through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach incorporates trust-based and certainty-based update mechanisms, allowing the agent to refine its understanding of the human's mental state based on the human's expressed trust in the agent's arguments and certainty in their own arguments. We employ a probability weighting function inspired by prospect theory to capture the relationship between trust and perceived probability, and use a Bayesian approach to update the agent's probability distribution over possible human models. We conduct a human-subject study to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in an argumentation scenario, demonstrating its ability to capture the dynamics of human belief formation and adaptation.

Data-Driven Goal Recognition Design for General Behavioral Agents

Goal recognition design aims to make limited modifications to decision-making environments with the goal of making it easier to infer the goals of agents acting within those environments. Although various research efforts have been made in goal recognition design, existing approaches are computationally demanding and often assume that agents are (near-)optimal in their decision-making. To address these limitations, we introduce a data-driven approach to goal recognition design that can account for agents with general behavioral models. Following existing literature, we use worst-case distinctiveness ($\textit{wcd}$) as a measure of the difficulty in inferring the goal of an agent in a decision-making environment. Our approach begins by training a machine learning model to predict the $\textit{wcd}$ for a given environment and the agent behavior model. We then propose a gradient-based optimization framework that accommodates various constraints to optimize decision-making environments for enhanced goal recognition. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing methods in reducing $\textit{wcd}$ and enhancing runtime efficiency in conventional setups, and it also adapts to scenarios not previously covered in the literature, such as those involving flexible budget constraints, more complex environments, and suboptimal agent behavior. Moreover, we have conducted human-subject experiments which confirm that our method can create environments that facilitate efficient goal recognition from real-world human decision-makers.

DR-HAI: Argumentation-based Dialectical Reconciliation in Human-AI Interactions

We introduce DR-HAI -- a novel argumentation-based framework designed to extend model reconciliation approaches, commonly used in explainable AI planning, for enhanced human-AI interaction. By adopting a multi-shot reconciliation paradigm and not assuming a-priori knowledge of the human user's model, DR-HAI enables interactive reconciliation to address knowledge discrepancies between an explainer and an explainee. We formally describe the operational semantics of DR-HAI, provide theoretical guarantees related to termination and success, and empirically evaluate its efficacy. Our findings suggest that DR-HAI offers a promising direction for fostering effective human-AI interactions.

Using Simple Incentives to Improve Two-Sided Fairness in Ridesharing Systems

State-of-the-art order dispatching algorithms for ridesharing batch passenger requests and allocate them to a fleet of vehicles in a centralized manner, optimizing over the estimated values of each passenger-vehicle matching using integer linear programming (ILP). Using good estimates of future values, such ILP-based approaches are able to significantly increase the service rates (percentage of requests served) for a fixed fleet of vehicles. However, such approaches that focus solely on maximizing efficiency can lead to disparities for both drivers (e.g., income inequality) and passengers (e.g., inequality of service for different groups). Existing approaches that consider fairness only do it for naive assignment policies, require extensive training, or look at only single-sided fairness. We propose a simple incentive-based fairness scheme that can be implemented online as a part of this ILP formulation that allows us to improve fairness over a variety of fairness metrics. Deriving from a lens of variance minimization, we describe how these fairness incentives can be formulated for two distinct use cases for passenger groups and driver fairness. We show that under mild conditions, our approach can guarantee an improvement in the chosen metric for the worst-off individual. We also show empirically that our Simple Incentives approach significantly outperforms prior art, despite requiring no retraining; indeed, it often leads to a large improvement over the state-of-the-art fairness-aware approach in both overall service rate and fairness.

On Exploiting Hitting Sets for Model Reconciliation

In human-aware planning, a planning agent may need to provide an explanation to a human user on why its plan is optimal. A popular approach to do this is called model reconciliation, where the agent tries to reconcile the differences in its model and the human's model such that the plan is also optimal in the human's model. In this paper, we present a logic-based framework for model reconciliation that extends beyond the realm of planning. More specifically, given a knowledge base $KB_1$ entailing a formula $\varphi$ and a second knowledge base $KB_2$ not entailing it, model reconciliation seeks an explanation, in the form of a cardinality-minimal subset of $KB_1$, whose integration into $KB_2$ makes the entailment possible. Our approach, based on ideas originating in the context of analysis of inconsistencies, exploits the existing hitting set duality between minimal correction sets (MCSes) and minimal unsatisfiable sets (MUSes) in order to identify an appropriate explanation. However, differently from those works targeting inconsistent formulas, which assume a single knowledge base, MCSes and MUSes are computed over two distinct knowledge bases. We conclude our paper with an empirical evaluation of the newly introduced approach on planning instances, where we show how it outperforms an existing state-of-the-art solver, and generic non-planning instances from recent SAT competitions, for which no other solver exists.

On the Relationship Between KR Approaches for Explainable Planning

In this paper, we build upon notions from knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) to expand a preliminary logic-based framework that characterizes the model reconciliation problem for explainable planning. We also provide a detailed exposition on the relationship between similar KR techniques, such as abductive explanations and belief change, and their applicability to explainable planning.