Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou

Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Ashwin Kumar, William Yeoh et al.

We present a novel framework designed to extend model reconciliation approaches, commonly used in human-aware planning, for enhanced human-AI interaction. By adopting a structured argumentation-based dialogue paradigm, our framework enables dialectical reconciliation to address knowledge discrepancies between an explainer (AI agent) and an explainee (human user), where the goal is for the explainee to understand the explainer's decision. We formally describe the operational semantics of our proposed framework, providing theoretical guarantees. We then evaluate the framework's efficacy ``in the wild'' via computational and human-subject experiments. Our findings suggest that our framework offers a promising direction for fostering effective human-AI interactions in domains where explainability is important.

Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni et al.

Computational argumentation offers formal frameworks for transparent, verifiable reasoning but has traditionally been limited by its reliance on domain-specific information and extensive feature engineering. In contrast, LLMs excel at processing unstructured text, yet their opaque nature makes their reasoning difficult to evaluate and trust. We argue that the convergence of these fields will lay the foundation for a new paradigm: Argumentative Human-AI Decision-Making. We analyze how the synergy of argumentation framework mining, argumentation framework synthesis, and argumentative reasoning enables agents that do not just justify decisions, but engage in dialectical processes where decisions are contestable and revisable -- reasoning with humans rather than for them. This convergence of computational argumentation and LLMs is essential for human-aware, trustworthy AI in high-stakes domains.

Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh

We present TRACE-CS, a novel hybrid system that combines symbolic reasoning with large language models (LLMs)to address contrastive queries in course scheduling problems. TRACE-CS leverages logic-based techniques to encode scheduling constraints and generate provably correct explanations, while utilizing an LLM to process natural language queries and refine logical explanations into user friendly responses. This system showcases how combining symbolic KR methods with LLMs creates explainable AI agents that balance logical correctness with natural language accessibility, addressing a fundamental challenge in deployed scheduling systems.

Yinxu Tang, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh

Explainable AI is increasingly employing argumentation methods to facilitate interactive explanations between AI agents and human users. While existing approaches typically rely on predetermined human user models, there remains a critical gap in dynamically learning and updating these models during interactions. In this paper, we present a framework that enables AI agents to adapt their understanding of human users through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach, called Persona, draws on prospect theory and integrates a probability weighting function with a Bayesian belief update mechanism that refines a probability distribution over possible human models based on exchanged arguments. Through empirical evaluations with human users in an applied argumentation setting, we demonstrate that Persona effectively captures evolving human beliefs, facilitates personalized interactions, and outperforms state-of-the-art methods.

Ben Rachmut, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Nimrod Meir Weinstein et al.

The Distributed Constraint Optimization Problem (DCOP) formulation is a powerful tool to model cooperative multi-agent problems that need to be solved distributively. A core assumption of existing approaches is that DCOP solutions can be easily understood, accepted, and adopted, which may not hold, as evidenced by the large body of literature on Explainable AI. In this paper, we propose the Explainable DCOP (X-DCOP) model, which extends a DCOP to include its solution and a contrastive query for that solution. We formally define some key properties that contrastive explanations must satisfy for them to be considered as valid solutions to X-DCOPs as well as theoretical results on the existence of such valid explanations. To solve X-DCOPs, we propose a distributed framework as well as several optimizations and suboptimal variants to find valid explanations. We also include a human user study that showed that users, not surprisingly, prefer shorter explanations over longer ones. Our empirical evaluations showed that our approach can scale to large problems, and the different variants provide different options for trading off explanation lengths for smaller runtimes. Thus, our model and algorithmic contributions extend the state of the art by reducing the barrier for users to understand DCOP solutions, facilitating their adoption in more real-world applications.

Antonio Rago, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Francesca Toni et al.

Gradual semantics (GS) have demonstrated great potential in argumentation, in particular for deploying quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) in a number of real-world settings, from judgmental forecasting to explainable AI. In this paper, we provide a novel methodology for obtaining GS for statement graphs, a form of structured argumentation framework, where arguments and relations between them are built from logical statements. Our methodology differs from existing approaches in the literature in two main ways. First, it naturally accommodates incomplete information, so that arguments with partially specified premises can play a meaningful role in the evaluation. Second, it is modularly defined to leverage on any GS for QBAFs. We also define a set of novel properties for our GS and study their suitability alongside a set of existing properties (adapted to our setting) for two instantiations of our GS, demonstrating their advantages over existing approaches.

Silvia Tulli, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Sarath Sreedharan

"Human-aware" has become a popular keyword used to describe a particular class of AI systems that are designed to work and interact with humans. While there exists a surprising level of consistency among the works that use the label human-aware, the term itself mostly remains poorly understood. In this work, we retroactively try to provide an account of what constitutes a human-aware AI system. We see that human-aware AI is a design oriented paradigm, one that focuses on the need for modeling the humans it may interact with. Additionally, we see that this paradigm offers us intuitive dimensions to understand and categorize the kinds of interactions these systems might have with humans. We show the pedagogical value of these dimensions by using them as a tool to understand and review the current landscape of work related to human-AI systems that purport some form of human modeling. To fit the scope of a workshop paper, we specifically narrowed our review to papers that deal with sequential decision-making and were published in a major AI conference in the last three years. Our analysis helps identify the space of potential research problems that are currently being overlooked. We perform additional analysis on the degree to which these works make explicit reference to results from social science and whether they actually perform user-studies to validate their systems. We also provide an accounting of the various AI methods used by these works.

Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Antonio Rago, Maria Vanina Martinez et al.

Understanding how humans revise their beliefs in light of new information is crucial for developing AI systems which can effectively model, and thus align with, human reasoning. While theoretical belief revision frameworks rely on a set of principles that establish how these operations are performed, empirical evidence from cognitive psychology suggests that people may follow different patterns when presented with conflicting information. In this paper, we present three comprehensive user studies showing that people consistently prefer explanation-based revisions, i.e., those which are guided by explanations, that result in changes to their belief systems that are not necessarily captured by classical belief change theory. Our experiments systematically investigate how people revise their beliefs with explanations for inconsistencies, whether they are provided with them or left to formulate them themselves, demonstrating a robust preference for what may seem non-minimal revisions across different types of scenarios. These findings have implications for AI systems designed to model human reasoning or interact with humans, suggesting that such systems should accommodate explanation-based, potentially non-minimal belief revision operators to better align with human cognitive processes.

Silvia Tulli, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Mohamed Chetouani et al.

One of the significant challenges to generating value-aligned behavior is to not only account for the specified user objectives but also any implicit or unspecified user requirements. The existence of such implicit requirements could be particularly common in settings where the user's understanding of the task model may differ from the agent's estimate of the model. Under this scenario, the user may incorrectly expect some agent behavior to be inevitable or guaranteed. This paper addresses such expectation mismatch in the presence of differing models by capturing the possibility of unspecified user subgoal in the context of a task captured as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) and querying for it as required. Our method identifies bottleneck states and uses them as candidates for potential implicit subgoals. We then introduce a querying strategy that will generate the minimal number of queries required to identify a policy guaranteed to achieve the underlying goal. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in inferring and achieving unstated goals across various tasks.

Andrew Estornell, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh et al.

In today's competitive financial landscape, understanding and anticipating customer goals is crucial for institutions to deliver a personalized and optimized user experience. This has given rise to the problem of accurately predicting customer goals and actions. Focusing on that problem, we use historical customer traces generated by a realistic simulator and present two simple models for predicting customer goals and future actions -- an LSTM model and an LSTM model enhanced with state-space graph embeddings. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of these models when it comes to predicting customer goals and actions.

Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Alessandro Previti, William Yeoh

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.

Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh, Tran Cao Son

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.