Verena Klös

AI
h-index2
3papers
71citations
Novelty22%
AI Score26

3 Papers

ROJul 2, 2025
Effective Explanations for Belief-Desire-Intention Robots: When and What to Explain

Cong Wang, Roberto Calandra, Verena Klös

When robots perform complex and context-dependent tasks in our daily lives, deviations from expectations can confuse users. Explanations of the robot's reasoning process can help users to understand the robot intentions. However, when to provide explanations and what they contain are important to avoid user annoyance. We have investigated user preferences for explanation demand and content for a robot that helps with daily cleaning tasks in a kitchen. Our results show that users want explanations in surprising situations and prefer concise explanations that clearly state the intention behind the confusing action and the contextual factors that were relevant to this decision. Based on these findings, we propose two algorithms to identify surprising actions and to construct effective explanations for Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) robots. Our algorithms can be easily integrated in the BDI reasoning process and pave the way for better human-robot interaction with context- and user-specific explanations.

SEAug 12, 2021
Cases for Explainable Software Systems:Characteristics and Examples

Mersedeh Sadeghi, Verena Klös, Andreas Vogelsang

The need for systems to explain behavior to users has become more evident with the rise of complex technology like machine learning or self-adaptation. In general, the need for an explanation arises when the behavior of a system does not match the user's expectations. However, there may be several reasons for a mismatch including errors, goal conflicts, or multi-agent interference. Given the various situations, we need precise and agreed descriptions of explanation needs as well as benchmarks to align research on explainable systems. In this paper, we present a taxonomy that structures needs for an explanation according to different reasons. We focus on explanations to improve the user interaction with the system. For each leaf node in the taxonomy, we provide a scenario that describes a concrete situation in which a software system should provide an explanation. These scenarios, called explanation cases, illustrate the different demands for explanations. Our taxonomy can guide the requirements elicitation for explanation capabilities of interactive intelligent systems and our explanation cases build the basis for a common benchmark. We are convinced that both, the taxonomy and the explanation cases, help the community to align future research on explainable systems.

AIAug 13, 2019
Towards Self-Explainable Cyber-Physical Systems

Mathias Blumreiter, Joel Greenyer, Francisco Javier Chiyah Garcia et al.

With the increasing complexity of CPSs, their behavior and decisions become increasingly difficult to understand and comprehend for users and other stakeholders. Our vision is to build self-explainable systems that can, at run-time, answer questions about the system's past, current, and future behavior. As hitherto no design methodology or reference framework exists for building such systems, we propose the MAB-EX framework for building self-explainable systems that leverage requirements- and explainability models at run-time. The basic idea of MAB-EX is to first Monitor and Analyze a certain behavior of a system, then Build an explanation from explanation models and convey this EXplanation in a suitable way to a stakeholder. We also take into account that new explanations can be learned, by updating the explanation models, should new and yet un-explainable behavior be detected by the system.