Tim Miller

Thao Le, Tim Miller, Ronal Singh et al.

In this paper, we show that counterfactual explanations of confidence scores help users better understand and better trust an AI model's prediction in human-subject studies. Showing confidence scores in human-agent interaction systems can help build trust between humans and AI systems. However, most existing research only used the confidence score as a form of communication, and we still lack ways to explain why the algorithm is confident. This paper also presents two methods for understanding model confidence using counterfactual explanation: (1) based on counterfactual examples; and (2) based on visualisation of the counterfactual space.

Alan Lewis, Tim Miller

This paper investigates deceptive reinforcement learning for privacy preservation in model-free and continuous action space domains. In reinforcement learning, the reward function defines the agent's objective. In adversarial scenarios, an agent may need to both maximise rewards and keep its reward function private from observers. Recent research presented the ambiguity model (AM), which selects actions that are ambiguous over a set of possible reward functions, via pre-trained $Q$-functions. Despite promising results in model-based domains, our investigation shows that AM is ineffective in model-free domains due to misdirected state space exploration. It is also inefficient to train and inapplicable in continuous action space domains. We propose the deceptive exploration ambiguity model (DEAM), which learns using the deceptive policy during training, leading to targeted exploration of the state space. DEAM is also applicable in continuous action spaces. We evaluate DEAM in discrete and continuous action space path planning environments. DEAM achieves similar performance to an optimal model-based version of AM and outperforms a model-free version of AM in terms of path cost, deceptiveness and training efficiency. These results extend to the continuous domain.

Thao Le, Tim Miller, Ronal Singh et al.

Displaying confidence scores in human-AI interaction has been shown to help build trust between humans and AI systems. However, most existing research uses only the confidence score as a form of communication. As confidence scores are just another model output, users may want to understand why the algorithm is confident to determine whether to accept the confidence score. In this paper, we show that counterfactual explanations of confidence scores help study participants to better understand and better trust a machine learning model's prediction. We present two methods for understanding model confidence using counterfactual explanation: (1) based on counterfactual examples; and (2) based on visualisation of the counterfactual space. Both increase understanding and trust for study participants over a baseline of no explanation, but qualitative results show that they are used quite differently, leading to recommendations of when to use each one and directions of designing better explanations.

Tim Miller

In this paper, we argue for a paradigm shift from the current model of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), which may be counter-productive to better human decision making. In early decision support systems, we assumed that we could give people recommendations and that they would consider them, and then follow them when required. However, research found that people often ignore recommendations because they do not trust them; or perhaps even worse, people follow them blindly, even when the recommendations are wrong. Explainable artificial intelligence mitigates this by helping people to understand how and why models give certain recommendations. However, recent research shows that people do not always engage with explainability tools enough to help improve decision making. The assumption that people will engage with recommendations and explanations has proven to be unfounded. We argue this is because we have failed to account for two things. First, recommendations (and their explanations) take control from human decision makers, limiting their agency. Second, giving recommendations and explanations does not align with the cognitive processes employed by people making decisions. This position paper proposes a new conceptual framework called Evaluative AI for explainable decision support. This is a machine-in-the-loop paradigm in which decision support tools provide evidence for and against decisions made by people, rather than provide recommendations to accept or reject. We argue that this mitigates issues of over- and under-reliance on decision support tools, and better leverages human expertise in decision making.

Lyndon Benke, Tim Miller, Michael Papasimeon et al.

Diverse, top-k, and top-quality planning are concerned with the generation of sets of solutions to sequential decision problems. Previously this area has been the domain of classical planners that require a symbolic model of the problem instance. This paper proposes a novel alternative approach that uses Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), enabling application to problems for which only a black-box simulation model is available. We present a procedure for extracting bounded sets of plans from pre-generated search trees in best-first order, and a metric for evaluating the relative quality of paths through a search tree. We demonstrate this approach on a path-planning problem with hidden information, and suggest adaptations to the MCTS algorithm to increase the diversity of generated plans. Our results show that our method can generate diverse and high-quality plan sets in domains where classical planners are not applicable.

Tim Miller

This paper presents an argument for why we are not measuring trust sufficiently in explainability, interpretability, and transparency research. Most studies ask participants to complete a trust scale to rate their trust of a model that has been explained/interpreted. If the trust is increased, we consider this a positive. However, there are two issues with this. First, we usually have no way of knowing whether participants should trust the model. Trust should surely decrease if a model is of poor quality. Second, these scales measure perceived trust rather than demonstrated trust. This paper showcases three methods that do a good job at measuring perceived and demonstrated trust. It is intended to be starting point for discussion on this topic, rather than to be the final say. The author invites critique and discussion.

Abeer Alshehri, Tim Miller, Mor Vered

We introduce and evaluate an eXplainable Goal Recognition (XGR) model that uses the Weight of Evidence (WoE) framework to explain goal recognition problems. Our model provides human-centered explanations that answer why? and why not? questions. We computationally evaluate the performance of our system over eight different domains. Using a human behavioral study to obtain the ground truth from human annotators, we further show that the XGR model can successfully generate human-like explanations. We then report on a study with 60 participants who observe agents playing Sokoban game and then receive explanations of the goal recognition output. We investigate participants' understanding obtained by explanations through task prediction, explanation satisfaction, and trust.

Gayda Mutahar, Tim Miller

This paper evaluates whether training a decision tree based on concepts extracted from a concept-based explainer can increase interpretability for Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) models and boost the fidelity and performance of the used explainer. CNNs for computer vision have shown exceptional performance in critical industries. However, it is a significant barrier when deploying CNNs due to their complexity and lack of interpretability. Recent studies to explain computer vision models have shifted from extracting low-level features (pixel-based explanations) to mid-or high-level features (concept-based explanations). The current research direction tends to use extracted features in developing approximation algorithms such as linear or decision tree models to interpret an original model. In this work, we modify one of the state-of-the-art concept-based explanations and propose an alternative framework named TreeICE. We design a systematic evaluation based on the requirements of fidelity (approximate models to original model's labels), performance (approximate models to ground-truth labels), and interpretability (meaningful of approximate models to humans). We conduct computational evaluation (for fidelity and performance) and human subject experiments (for interpretability) We find that Tree-ICE outperforms the baseline in interpretability and generates more human readable explanations in the form of a semantic tree structure. This work features how important to have more understandable explanations when interpretability is crucial.

Abeer Alshehri, Amal Abdulrahman, Hajar Alamri et al.

Goal recognition (GR) involves inferring an agent's unobserved goal from a sequence of observations. This is a critical problem in AI with diverse applications. Traditionally, GR has been addressed using 'inference to the best explanation' or abduction, where hypotheses about the agent's goals are generated as the most plausible explanations for observed behavior. Alternatively, some approaches enhance interpretability by ensuring that an agent's behavior aligns with an observer's expectations or by making the reasoning behind decisions more transparent. In this work, we tackle a different challenge: explaining the GR process in a way that is comprehensible to humans. We introduce and evaluate an explainable model for goal recognition (GR) agents, grounded in the theoretical framework and cognitive processes underlying human behavior explanation. Drawing on insights from two human-agent studies, we propose a conceptual framework for human-centered explanations of GR. Using this framework, we develop the eXplainable Goal Recognition (XGR) model, which generates explanations for both why and why not questions. We evaluate the model computationally across eight GR benchmarks and through three user studies. The first study assesses the efficiency of generating human-like explanations within the Sokoban game domain, the second examines perceived explainability in the same domain, and the third evaluates the model's effectiveness in aiding decision-making in illegal fishing detection. Results demonstrate that the XGR model significantly enhances user understanding, trust, and decision-making compared to baseline models, underscoring its potential to improve human-agent collaboration.

Michaela Benk, Tim Miller

The HCI community commonly evaluates decision support systems based on whether they improve task performance or promote appropriate user reliance. In this work, we look beyond decision outcomes to examine the process through which users develop decision-making strategies. Through a web-based experiment (N = 290) comparing recommendation-driven and hypothesis-driven interaction designs, and using Signal Detection Theory as a theoretical framework, we show that even when performance remains identical, recommendation-driven designs lower participants' thresholds for sufficient evidence and introduce a "hidden bias" in their judgments, resulting in a shifted distribution of errors. Furthermore, we find that experts are just as susceptible to these systemic shifts as novices. We conclude by advocating for a shift in focus: prioritizing decision processes and the preservation of stable evidence standards over performance and reliance alone.

Francesco Bombassei De Bona, Gabriele Dominici, Tim Miller et al.

As AI becomes fundamental in sectors like healthcare, explainable AI (XAI) tools are essential for trust and transparency. However, traditional user studies used to evaluate these tools are often costly, time consuming, and difficult to scale. In this paper, we explore the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to replicate human participants to help streamline XAI evaluation. We reproduce a user study comparing counterfactual and causal explanations, replicating human participants with seven LLMs under various settings. Our results show that (i) LLMs can replicate most conclusions from the original study, (ii) different LLMs yield varying levels of alignment in the results, and (iii) experimental factors such as LLM memory and output variability affect alignment with human responses. These initial findings suggest that LLMs could provide a scalable and cost-effective way to simplify qualitative XAI evaluation.

Thao Le, Tim Miller, Liz Sonenberg et al.

This paper presents a hypothesis-driven approach to improve AI-supported decision-making that is based on the Evaluative AI paradigm - a conceptual framework that proposes providing users with evidence for or against a given hypothesis. We propose an implementation of Evaluative AI by extending the Weight of Evidence framework, leading to hypothesis-driven models that support both tabular and image data. We demonstrate the application of the new decision-support approach in two domains: housing price prediction and skin cancer diagnosis. The findings show promising results in improving human decisions, as well as providing insights on the strengths and weaknesses of different decision-support approaches.

Yiyu Qian, Liyuan Zhao, Tim Miller

Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a fundamental sampling-based search algorithm widely used for online planning in sequential decision-making domains. Despite its success in driving recent advances in artificial intelligence, understanding the behavior of MCTS agents remains a challenge for both developers and users. This difficulty stems from the complex search trees produced through the simulation of numerous future states and their intricate relationships. A known weakness of standard MCTS is its reliance on highly selective tree construction, which may lead to the omission of crucial moves and a vulnerability to tactical traps. To resolve this, we incorporate shallow, full-width Minimax search into the rollout phase of multi-agent MCTS to enhance strategic depth. Furthermore, to demystify the resulting decision-making logic, we introduce \textsf{M2-PALE} (MCTS--Minimax Process-Aided Linguistic Explanations). This framework employs process mining techniques, specifically the Alpha Miner, iDHM, and Inductive Miner algorithms, to extract underlying behavioral workflows from agent execution traces. These process models are then synthesized by LLMs to generate human-readable causal and distal explanations. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach in a small-scale checkers environment, establishing a scalable foundation for interpreting hybrid agents in increasingly complex strategic domains.

Susanne Gaube, Markus Langer, Tim Miller et al.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in high-risk, decision-making scenarios presents technical, safety, and normative challenges; problems that may only be ameliorated by human oversight. However, notions of human oversight lack a common foundational understanding: oversight architectures are not well defined, the roles involved remain unclear, and implementation steps are opaque. Hence, researchers and practitioners struggle to determine how to design, implement, and evaluate systems that enable effective human oversight. This paper advances a practical framework for effective human oversight of AI systems, based on a cross-disciplinary perspective that draws on insights from computer science, human-computer interaction, psychology, philosophy, and law. The core contributions are: (1) a foundational framework, with a working definition, architecture and processes for effective human oversight of AI systems; (2) an initial template for documenting oversight architectures and processes, applied to diverse domains; and (3) a synthesis of open research challenges that need to be considered in the emerging field of effective human oversight of AI systems.

Thao Le, Tim Miller, Ruihan Zhang et al.

This paper presents Visual Evaluative AI, a decision aid that provides positive and negative evidence from image data for a given hypothesis. This tool finds high-level human concepts in an image and generates the Weight of Evidence (WoE) for each hypothesis in the decision-making process. We apply and evaluate this tool in the skin cancer domain by building a web-based application that allows users to upload a dermatoscopic image, select a hypothesis and analyse their decisions by evaluating the provided evidence. Further, we demonstrate the effectiveness of Visual Evaluative AI on different concept-based explanation approaches.

Chengbo Zheng, Tim Miller, Alina Bialkowski et al.

High stakes decision-making often requires a continuous interplay between evolving evidence and shifting hypotheses, a dynamic that is not well supported by current AI decision support systems. In this paper, we introduce a mixed-initiative framework for AI assisted decision making that is grounded in the data-frame theory of sensemaking and the evaluative AI paradigm. Our approach enables both humans and AI to collaboratively construct, validate, and adapt hypotheses. We demonstrate our framework with an AI-assisted skin cancer diagnosis prototype that leverages a concept bottleneck model to facilitate interpretable interactions and dynamic updates to diagnostic hypotheses.

Yiyu Qian, Tim Miller, Zheng Qian et al.

Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a family of sampling-based search algorithms widely used for online planning in sequential decision-making domains and at the heart of many recent advances in artificial intelligence. Understanding the behavior of MCTS agents is difficult for developers and users due to the frequently large and complex search trees that result from the simulation of many possible futures, their evaluations, and their relationships. This paper presents our ongoing investigation into potential explanations for the decision-making and behavior of MCTS. A weakness of MCTS is that it constructs a highly selective tree and, as a result, can miss crucial moves and fall into tactical traps. Full-width minimax search constitutes the solution. We integrate shallow minimax search into the rollout phase of multi-agent MCTS and use process mining technique to explain agents' strategies in 3v3 checkers.

Guang Hu, Tim Miller, Nir Lipovetzky

Epistemic planning is the sub-field of AI planning that focuses on changing knowledge and belief. It is important in both multi-agent domains where agents need to have knowledge/belief regarding the environment, but also the beliefs of other agents, including nested beliefs. When modeling knowledge in multi-agent settings, many models face an exponential growth challenge in terms of nested depth. A contemporary method, known as Planning with Perspectives (PWP), addresses these challenges through the use of perspectives and set operations for knowledge. The JP model defines that an agent's belief is justified if and only if the agent has seen evidence that this belief was true in the past and has not seen evidence to suggest that this has changed. The current paper extends the JP model to handle \emph{group belief}, including distributed belief and common belief. We call this the Group Justified Perspective (GJP) model. Using experimental problems crafted by adapting well-known benchmarks to a group setting, we show the efficiency and expressiveness of our GJP model at handling planning problems that cannot be handled by other epistemic planning tools.

Christian Muise, Vaishak Belle, Paolo Felli et al.

Many AI applications involve the interaction of multiple autonomous agents, requiring those agents to reason about their own beliefs, as well as those of other agents. However, planning involving nested beliefs is known to be computationally challenging. In this work, we address the task of synthesizing plans that necessitate reasoning about the beliefs of other agents. We plan from the perspective of a single agent with the potential for goals and actions that involve nested beliefs, non-homogeneous agents, co-present observations, and the ability for one agent to reason as if it were another. We formally characterize our notion of planning with nested belief, and subsequently demonstrate how to automatically convert such problems into problems that appeal to classical planning technology for solving efficiently. Our approach represents an important step towards applying the well-established field of automated planning to the challenging task of planning involving nested beliefs of multiple agents.

Ronal Singh, Tim Miller, Darryn Reid

Intelligent agents powered by AI planning assist people in complex scenarios, such as managing teams of semi-autonomous vehicles. However, AI planning models may be incomplete, leading to plans that do not adequately meet the stated objectives, especially in unpredicted situations. Humans, who are apt at identifying and adapting to unusual situations, may be able to assist planning agents in these situations by encoding their knowledge into a planner at run-time. We investigate whether people can collaborate with agents by providing their knowledge to an agent using linear temporal logic (LTL) at run-time without changing the agent's domain model. We presented 24 participants with baseline plans for situations in which a planner had limitations, and asked the participants for workarounds for these limitations. We encoded these workarounds as LTL constraints. Results show that participants' constraints improved the expected return of the plans by 10% ($p < 0.05$) relative to baseline plans, demonstrating that human insight can be used in collaborative planning for resilience. However, participants used more declarative than control constraints over time, but declarative constraints produced plans less similar to the expectation of the participants, which could lead to potential trust issues.

Ronal Singh, Upol Ehsan, Marc Cheong et al.

Several social factors impact how people respond to AI explanations used to justify AI decisions affecting them personally. In this position paper, we define a framework called the \textit{layers of explanation} (LEx), a lens through which we can assess the appropriateness of different types of explanations. The framework uses the notions of \textit{sensitivity} (emotional responsiveness) of features and the level of \textit{stakes} (decision's consequence) in a domain to determine whether different types of explanations are \textit{appropriate} in a given context. We demonstrate how to use the framework to assess the appropriateness of different types of explanations in different domains.

Henrietta Lyons, Eduardo Velloso, Tim Miller

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in high-stakes decision-making increases, the ability to contest such decisions is being recognised in AI ethics guidelines as an important safeguard for individuals. Yet, there is little guidance on how AI systems can be designed to support contestation. In this paper we explain that the design of a contestation process is important due to its impact on perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. We also consider design challenges, including a lack of transparency as well as the numerous design options that decision-making entities will be faced with. We argue for a human-centred approach to designing for contestability to ensure that the needs of decision subjects, and the community, are met.

Henrietta Lyons, Eduardo Velloso, Tim Miller

A paper presented at the Workshop on Contestability in Algorithmic Systems at CSCW 2019. Challenging algorithmic decisions is important to decision subjects, yet numerous factors can limit a person's ability to contest such decisions. We propose that administrative law systems, which were created to ensure that governments are kept accountable for their actions and decision making in relation to individuals, can provide guidance on how to design contestation systems for algorithmic decision-making.

Zhengshang Liu, Yue Yang, Tim Miller et al.

In this paper, we study the problem of deceptive reinforcement learning to preserve the privacy of a reward function. Reinforcement learning is the problem of finding a behaviour policy based on rewards received from exploratory behaviour. A key ingredient in reinforcement learning is a reward function, which determines how much reward (negative or positive) is given and when. However, in some situations, we may want to keep a reward function private; that is, to make it difficult for an observer to determine the reward function used. We define the problem of privacy-preserving reinforcement learning, and present two models for solving it. These models are based on dissimulation -- a form of deception that `hides the truth'. We evaluate our models both computationally and via human behavioural experiments. Results show that the resulting policies are indeed deceptive, and that participants can determine the true reward function less reliably than that of an honest agent.

Ronal Singh, Paul Dourish, Piers Howe et al.

This paper investigates the prospects of using directive explanations to assist people in achieving recourse of machine learning decisions. Directive explanations list which specific actions an individual needs to take to achieve their desired outcome. If a machine learning model makes a decision that is detrimental to an individual (e.g. denying a loan application), then it needs to both explain why it made that decision and also explain how the individual could obtain their desired outcome (if possible). At present, this is often done using counterfactual explanations, but such explanations generally do not tell individuals how to act. We assert that counterfactual explanations can be improved by explicitly providing people with actions they could use to achieve their desired goal. This paper makes two contributions. First, we present the results of an online study investigating people's perception of directive explanations. Second, we propose a conceptual model to generate such explanations. Our online study showed a significant preference for directive explanations ($p<0.001$). However, the participants' preferred explanation type was affected by multiple factors, such as individual preferences, social factors, and the feasibility of the directives. Our findings highlight the need for a human-centred and context-specific approach for creating directive explanations.

Simon Coghlan, Tim Miller, Jeannie Paterson

This article philosophically analyzes online exam supervision technologies, which have been thrust into the public spotlight due to campus lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growing demand for online courses. Online exam proctoring technologies purport to provide effective oversight of students sitting online exams, using artificial intelligence (AI) systems and human invigilators to supplement and review those systems. Such technologies have alarmed some students who see them as `Big Brother-like', yet some universities defend their judicious use. Critical ethical appraisal of online proctoring technologies is overdue. This article philosophically analyzes these technologies, focusing on the ethical concepts of academic integrity, fairness, non-maleficence, transparency, privacy, respect for autonomy, liberty, and trust. Most of these concepts are prominent in the new field of AI ethics and all are relevant to the education context. The essay provides ethical considerations that educational institutions will need to carefully review before electing to deploy and govern specific online proctoring technologies.

Alon Jacovi, Ana Marasović, Tim Miller et al.

Trust is a central component of the interaction between people and AI, in that 'incorrect' levels of trust may cause misuse, abuse or disuse of the technology. But what, precisely, is the nature of trust in AI? What are the prerequisites and goals of the cognitive mechanism of trust, and how can we promote them, or assess whether they are being satisfied in a given interaction? This work aims to answer these questions. We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people). This model rests on two key properties of the vulnerability of the user and the ability to anticipate the impact of the AI model's decisions. We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold, and a formalization of 'trustworthiness' (which detaches from the notion of trustworthiness in sociology), and with it concepts of 'warranted' and 'unwarranted' trust. We then present the possible causes of warranted trust as intrinsic reasoning and extrinsic behavior, and discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted. Finally, we elucidate the connection between trust and XAI using our formalization.

Ruihan Zhang, Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller et al.

Convolutional neural network (CNN) models for computer vision are powerful but lack explainability in their most basic form. This deficiency remains a key challenge when applying CNNs in important domains. Recent work on explanations through feature importance of approximate linear models has moved from input-level features (pixels or segments) to features from mid-layer feature maps in the form of concept activation vectors (CAVs). CAVs contain concept-level information and could be learned via clustering. In this work, we rethink the ACE algorithm of Ghorbani et~al., proposing an alternative invertible concept-based explanation (ICE) framework to overcome its shortcomings. Based on the requirements of fidelity (approximate models to target models) and interpretability (being meaningful to people), we design measurements and evaluate a range of matrix factorization methods with our framework. We find that non-negative concept activation vectors (NCAVs) from non-negative matrix factorization provide superior performance in interpretability and fidelity based on computational and human subject experiments. Our framework provides both local and global concept-level explanations for pre-trained CNN models.

Dianbo Liu, Tim Miller

Large scale contextual representation models, such as BERT, have significantly advanced natural language processing (NLP) in recently years. However, in certain area like healthcare, accessing diverse large scale text data from multiple institutions is extremely challenging due to privacy and regulatory reasons. In this article, we show that it is possible to both pretrain and fine tune BERT models in a federated manner using clinical texts from different silos without moving the data.

Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller, Liz Sonenberg et al.

In this paper we introduce and evaluate a distal explanation model for model-free reinforcement learning agents that can generate explanations for `why' and `why not' questions. Our starting point is the observation that causal models can generate opportunity chains that take the form of `A enables B and B causes C'. Using insights from an analysis of 240 explanations generated in a human-agent experiment, we define a distal explanation model that can analyse counterfactuals and opportunity chains using decision trees and causal models. A recurrent neural network is employed to learn opportunity chains, and decision trees are used to improve the accuracy of task prediction and the generated counterfactuals. We computationally evaluate the model in 6 reinforcement learning benchmarks using different reinforcement learning algorithms. From a study with 90 human participants, we show that our distal explanation model results in improved outcomes over three scenarios compared with two baseline explanation models.

Dianbo Liu, Kathe Fox, Griffin Weber et al.

Health information is generally fragmented across silos. Though it is technically feasible to unite data for analysis in a manner that underpins a rapid learning healthcare system, privacy concerns and regulatory barriers limit data centralization. Machine learning can be conducted in a federated manner on patient datasets with the same set of variables, but separated across sites of care. But federated learning cannot handle the situation where different data types for a given patient are separated vertically across different organizations and when patient ID matching across different institutions is difficult. We call methods that enable machine learning model training on data separated by two or more degrees confederated machine learning. We proposed and evaluated a confederated learning to training machine learning model to stratify the risk of several diseases among when data are horizontally separated by individual, vertically separated by data type, and separated by identity without patient ID matching.

Mor Vered, Frank Dignum, Tim Miller

Current AI approaches have frequently been used to help personalize many aspects of medical experiences and tailor them to a specific individuals' needs. However, while such systems consider medically-relevant information, they ignore socially-relevant information about how this diagnosis should be communicated and discussed with the patient. The lack of this capability may lead to mis-communication, resulting in serious implications, such as patients opting out of the best treatment. Consider a case in which the same treatment is proposed to two different individuals. The manner in which this treatment is mediated to each should be different, depending on the individual patient's history, knowledge, and mental state. While it is clear that this communication should be conveyed via a human medical expert and not a software-based system, humans are not always capable of considering all of the relevant aspects and traversing all available information. We pose the challenge of creating Intelligent Agents (IAs) to assist medical service providers (MSPs) and consumers in establishing a more personalized human-to-human dialogue. Personalizing conversations will enable patients and MSPs to reach a solution that is best for their particular situation, such that a relation of trust can be built and commitment to the outcome of the interaction is assured. We propose a four-part conceptual framework for personalized social interactions, expand on which techniques are available within current AI research and discuss what has yet to be achieved.

Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller, Liz Sonenberg et al.

Prevalent theories in cognitive science propose that humans understand and represent the knowledge of the world through causal relationships. In making sense of the world, we build causal models in our mind to encode cause-effect relations of events and use these to explain why new events happen. In this paper, we use causal models to derive causal explanations of behaviour of reinforcement learning agents. We present an approach that learns a structural causal model during reinforcement learning and encodes causal relationships between variables of interest. This model is then used to generate explanations of behaviour based on counterfactual analysis of the causal model. We report on a study with 120 participants who observe agents playing a real-time strategy game (Starcraft II) and then receive explanations of the agents' behaviour. We investigated: 1) participants' understanding gained by explanations through task prediction; 2) explanation satisfaction and 3) trust. Our results show that causal model explanations perform better on these measures compared to two other baseline explanation models.

Guang Hu, Tim Miller, Nir Lipovetzky

Epistemic planning --- planning with knowledge and belief --- is essential in many multi-agent and human-agent interaction domains. Most state-of-the-art epistemic planners solve this problem by compiling to propositional classical planning, for example, generating all possible knowledge atoms, or compiling epistemic formula to normal forms. However, these methods become computationally infeasible as problems grow. In this paper, we decompose epistemic planning by delegating reasoning about epistemic formula to an external solver. We do this by modelling the problem using \emph{functional STRIPS}, which is more expressive than standard STRIPS and supports the use of external, black-box functions within action models. Exploiting recent work that demonstrates the relationship between what an agent `sees' and what it knows, we allow modellers to provide new implementations of externals functions. These define what agents see in their environment, allowing new epistemic logics to be defined without changing the planner. As a result, it increases the capability and flexibility of the epistemic model itself, and avoids the exponential pre-compilation step. We ran evaluations on well-known epistemic planning benchmarks to compare with an existing state-of-the-art planner, and on new scenarios based on different external functions. The results show that our planner scales significantly better than the state-of-the-art planner against which we compared, and can express problems more succinctly.

Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller, Liz Sonenberg et al.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) systems need to include an explanation model to communicate the internal decisions, behaviours and actions to the interacting humans. Successful explanation involves both cognitive and social processes. In this paper we focus on the challenge of meaningful interaction between an explainer and an explainee and investigate the structural aspects of an interactive explanation to propose an interaction protocol. We follow a bottom-up approach to derive the model by analysing transcripts of different explanation dialogue types with 398 explanation dialogues. We use grounded theory to code and identify key components of an explanation dialogue. We formalize the model using the agent dialogue framework (ADF) as a new dialogue type and then evaluate it in a human-agent interaction study with 101 dialogues from 14 participants. Our results show that the proposed model can closely follow the explanation dialogues of human-agent conversations.

Tim Miller

This paper presents a model of contrastive explanation using structural casual models. The topic of causal explanation in artificial intelligence has gathered interest in recent years as researchers and practitioners aim to increase trust and understanding of intelligent decision-making. While different sub-fields of artificial intelligence have looked into this problem with a sub-field-specific view, there are few models that aim to capture explanation more generally. One general model is based on structural causal models. It defines an explanation as a fact that, if found to be true, would constitute an actual cause of a specific event. However, research in philosophy and social sciences shows that explanations are contrastive: that is, when people ask for an explanation of an event -- the fact -- they (sometimes implicitly) are asking for an explanation relative to some contrast case; that is, "Why P rather than Q?". In this paper, we extend the structural causal model approach to define two complementary notions of contrastive explanation, and demonstrate them on two classical problems in artificial intelligence: classification and planning. We believe that this model can help researchers in subfields of artificial intelligence to better understand contrastive explanation.

Mohammadhossein Sherkat, Tim Miller, Antonette Mendoza et al.

In designing most software applications, much effort is placed upon the functional goals, which make a software system useful. However, the failure to consider emotional goals, which make a software system pleasurable to use, can result in disappointment and system rejection even if utilitarian goals are well implemented. Although several studies have emphasized the importance of people's emotional goals in developing software, there is little advice on how to address these goals in the software system development process. This paper proposes a theoretically-sound and practical method by combining the theories and techniques of software engineering, requirements engineering, and decision making. The outcome of this study is the Emotional Goal Systematic Analysis Technique (EG-SAT), which facilitates the process of finding software system capabilities to address emotional goals in software design. EG-SAT is easy to learn and easy to use technique that helps analysts to gain insights into how to address people's emotional goals. To demonstrate the method in use, a two-part evaluation is conducted. First, EG-SAT is used to analyze the emotional goals of potential users of a mobile learning application that provides information about low carbon living for tradespeople and professionals in the building industry in Australia. The results of using EG-SAT in this case study are compared with a professionally-developed baseline. Second, we ran a semi-controlled experiment in which 12 participants were asked to apply EG-SAT and another technique on part of our case study. The outcomes show that EG-SAT helped participants to both analyse emotional goals and gain valuable insights about the functional and non-functional goals for addressing people's emotional goals.

Prashan Madumal, Tim Miller, Frank Vetere et al.

To generate trust with their users, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) systems need to include an explanation model that can communicate the internal decisions, behaviours and actions to the interacting humans. Successful explanation involves both cognitive and social processes. In this paper we focus on the challenge of meaningful interaction between an explainer and an explainee and investigate the structural aspects of an explanation in order to propose a human explanation dialog model. We follow a bottom-up approach to derive the model by analysing transcripts of 398 different explanation dialog types. We use grounded theory to code and identify key components of which an explanation dialog consists. We carry out further analysis to identify the relationships between components and sequences and cycles that occur in a dialog. We present a generalized state model obtained by the analysis and compare it with an existing conceptual dialog model of explanation.

Mohammadhossein Sherkat, Antonette Mendoza, Tim Miller et al.

In organizational and commercial settings, people often have clear roles and workflows against which functional and non-functional requirements can be extracted. However, in more social settings, such as platforms for enhancing social interaction, successful applications are driven more by using emotional engagement than functionality, and the drivers of user engagement are difficult to identify. A key challenge is to understand people's emotional goals so that they can be incorporated into the design. This paper proposes a novel framework called the Emotional Attachment Framework, which is based on existing models and theories of emotional attachment. Its aim is to facilitate the process of getting a deeper insight into emotional goals in software engineering. To demonstrate the framework in use, emotional goals are elicited for a software application that aims to provide help for homeless people. To measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed technique in this study, a series of evaluations are undertaken: a semi-controlled experiment, a comparison analysis, and domain expert and end-user evaluation. The results indicate that the Emotional Attachment Framework has the potential to give better insight during analysis of emotional goals.

Tim Miller, Piers Howe, Liz Sonenberg

In his seminal book `The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy And How To Restore The Sanity' [2004, Sams Indianapolis, IN, USA], Alan Cooper argues that a major reason why software is often poorly designed (from a user perspective) is that programmers are in charge of design decisions, rather than interaction designers. As a result, programmers design software for themselves, rather than for their target audience, a phenomenon he refers to as the `inmates running the asylum'. This paper argues that explainable AI risks a similar fate. While the re-emergence of explainable AI is positive, this paper argues most of us as AI researchers are building explanatory agents for ourselves, rather than for the intended users. But explainable AI is more likely to succeed if researchers and practitioners understand, adopt, implement, and improve models from the vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science, and if evaluation of these models is focused more on people than on technology. From a light scan of literature, we demonstrate that there is considerable scope to infuse more results from the social and behavioural sciences into explainable AI, and present some key results from these fields that are relevant to explainable AI.

Tim Miller

There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a `good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.

Liz Sonenberg, Tim Miller, Adrian Pearce et al.

Making a computational agent 'social' has implications for how it perceives itself and the environment in which it is situated, including the ability to recognise the behaviours of others. We point to recent work on social planning, i.e. planning in settings where the social context is relevant in the assessment of the beliefs and capabilities of others, and in making appropriate choices of what to do next.