Mersedeh Sadeghi

Anna Trapp, Mersedeh Sadeghi, Andreas Vogelsang

Explainability is increasingly seen as an essential feature of rule-based smart environments. While counterfactual explanations, which describe what could have been done differently to achieve a desired outcome, are a powerful tool in eXplainable AI (XAI), no established methods exist for generating them in these rule-based domains. In this paper, we present the first formalization and implementation of counterfactual explanations tailored to this domain. It is implemented as a plugin that extends an existing explanation engine for smart environments. We conducted a user study (N=17) to evaluate our generated counterfactuals against traditional causal explanations. The results show that user preference is highly contextual: causal explanations are favored for their linguistic simplicity and in time-pressured situations, while counterfactuals are preferred for their actionable content, particularly when a user wants to resolve a problem. Our work contributes a practical framework for a new type of explanation in smart environments and provides empirical evidence to guide the choice of when each explanation type is most effective.

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.