Balint Gyevnar

Ibrahim H. Ahmed, Cillian Brewitt, Ignacio Carlucho et al. · microsoft-research

The development of autonomous agents which can interact with other agents to accomplish a given task is a core area of research in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Towards this goal, the Autonomous Agents Research Group develops novel machine learning algorithms for autonomous systems control, with a specific focus on deep reinforcement learning and multi-agent reinforcement learning. Research problems include scalable learning of coordinated agent policies and inter-agent communication; reasoning about the behaviours, goals, and composition of other agents from limited observations; and sample-efficient learning based on intrinsic motivation, curriculum learning, causal inference, and representation learning. This article provides a broad overview of the ongoing research portfolio of the group and discusses open problems for future directions.

Balint Gyevnar, Cheng Wang, Christopher G. Lucas et al.

We present CEMA: Causal Explanations in Multi-Agent systems; a framework for creating causal natural language explanations of an agent's decisions in dynamic sequential multi-agent systems to build more trustworthy autonomous agents. Unlike prior work that assumes a fixed causal structure, CEMA only requires a probabilistic model for forward-simulating the state of the system. Using such a model, CEMA simulates counterfactual worlds that identify the salient causes behind the agent's decisions. We evaluate CEMA on the task of motion planning for autonomous driving and test it in diverse simulated scenarios. We show that CEMA correctly and robustly identifies the causes behind the agent's decisions, even when a large number of other agents is present, and show via a user study that CEMA's explanations have a positive effect on participants' trust in autonomous vehicles and are rated as high as high-quality baseline explanations elicited from other participants. We release the collected explanations with annotations as the HEADD dataset.

Balint Gyevnar, Nick Ferguson, Burkhard Schafer

The European Union has proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act which introduces detailed requirements of transparency for AI systems. Many of these requirements can be addressed by the field of explainable AI (XAI), however, there is a fundamental difference between XAI and the Act regarding what transparency is. The Act views transparency as a means that supports wider values, such as accountability, human rights, and sustainable innovation. In contrast, XAI views transparency narrowly as an end in itself, focusing on explaining complex algorithmic properties without considering the socio-technical context. We call this difference the ``transparency gap''. Failing to address the transparency gap, XAI risks leaving a range of transparency issues unaddressed. To begin to bridge this gap, we overview and clarify the terminology of how XAI and European regulation -- the Act and the related General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) -- view basic definitions of transparency. By comparing the disparate views of XAI and regulation, we arrive at four axes where practical work could bridge the transparency gap: defining the scope of transparency, clarifying the legal status of XAI, addressing issues with conformity assessment, and building explainability for datasets.

Balint Gyevnar, Stephanie Droop, Tadeg Quillien et al.

It is often argued that effective human-centered explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) should resemble human reasoning. However, empirical investigations of how concepts from cognitive science can aid the design of XAI are lacking. Based on insights from cognitive science, we propose a framework of explanatory modes to analyze how people frame explanations, whether mechanistic, teleological, or counterfactual. Using the complex safety-critical domain of autonomous driving, we conduct an experiment consisting of two studies on (i) how people explain the behavior of a vehicle in 14 unique scenarios (N1=54) and (ii) how they perceive these explanations (N2=382), curating the novel Human Explanations for Autonomous Driving Decisions (HEADD) dataset. Our main finding is that participants deem teleological explanations significantly better quality than counterfactual ones, with perceived teleology being the best predictor of perceived quality. Based on our results, we argue that explanatory modes are an important axis of analysis when designing and evaluating XAI and highlight the need for a principled and empirically grounded understanding of the cognitive mechanisms of explanation. The HEADD dataset and our code are available at: https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/handle/10283/8930.

Anton Kuznietsov, Balint Gyevnar, Cheng Wang et al.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) shows promising applications for the perception and planning tasks in autonomous driving (AD) due to its superior performance compared to conventional methods. However, inscrutable AI systems exacerbate the existing challenge of safety assurance of AD. One way to mitigate this challenge is to utilize explainable AI (XAI) techniques. To this end, we present the first comprehensive systematic literature review of explainable methods for safe and trustworthy AD. We begin by analyzing the requirements for AI in the context of AD, focusing on three key aspects: data, model, and agency. We find that XAI is fundamental to meeting these requirements. Based on this, we explain the sources of explanations in AI and describe a taxonomy of XAI. We then identify five key contributions of XAI for safe and trustworthy AI in AD, which are interpretable design, interpretable surrogate models, interpretable monitoring, auxiliary explanations, and interpretable validation. Finally, we propose a modular framework called SafeX to integrate these contributions, enabling explanation delivery to users while simultaneously ensuring the safety of AI models.

Balint Gyevnar, Mark Towers

Explanation is a fundamentally human process. Understanding the goal and audience of the explanation is vital, yet existing work on explainable reinforcement learning (XRL) routinely does not consult humans in their evaluations. Even when they do, they routinely resort to subjective metrics, such as confidence or understanding, that can only inform researchers of users' opinions, not their practical effectiveness for a given problem. This paper calls on researchers to use objective human metrics for explanation evaluations based on observable and actionable behaviour to build more reproducible, comparable, and epistemically grounded research. To this end, we curate, describe, and compare several objective evaluation methodologies for applying explanations to debugging agent behaviour and supporting human-agent teaming, illustrating our proposed methods using a novel grid-based environment. We discuss how subjective and objective metrics complement each other to provide holistic validation and how future work needs to utilise standardised benchmarks for testing to enable greater comparisons between research.

Cillian Brewitt, Balint Gyevnar, Samuel Garcin et al.

It is important for autonomous vehicles to have the ability to infer the goals of other vehicles (goal recognition), in order to safely interact with other vehicles and predict their future trajectories. This is a difficult problem, especially in urban environments with interactions between many vehicles. Goal recognition methods must be fast to run in real time and make accurate inferences. As autonomous driving is safety-critical, it is important to have methods which are human interpretable and for which safety can be formally verified. Existing goal recognition methods for autonomous vehicles fail to satisfy all four objectives of being fast, accurate, interpretable and verifiable. We propose Goal Recognition with Interpretable Trees (GRIT), a goal recognition system which achieves these objectives. GRIT makes use of decision trees trained on vehicle trajectory data. We evaluate GRIT on two datasets, showing that GRIT achieved fast inference speed and comparable accuracy to two deep learning baselines, a planning-based goal recognition method, and an ablation of GRIT. We show that the learned trees are human interpretable and demonstrate how properties of GRIT can be formally verified using a satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solver.

Stefano V. Albrecht, Cillian Brewitt, John Wilhelm et al.

We propose an integrated prediction and planning system for autonomous driving which uses rational inverse planning to recognise the goals of other vehicles. Goal recognition informs a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) algorithm to plan optimal maneuvers for the ego vehicle. Inverse planning and MCTS utilise a shared set of defined maneuvers and macro actions to construct plans which are explainable by means of rationality principles. Evaluation in simulations of urban driving scenarios demonstrate the system's ability to robustly recognise the goals of other vehicles, enabling our vehicle to exploit non-trivial opportunities to significantly reduce driving times. In each scenario, we extract intuitive explanations for the predictions which justify the system's decisions.