Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userExplainable AI for Robot Failures: Generating Explanations that Improve User Assistance in Fault Recovery
156
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Devleena Das
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
With the growing capabilities of intelligent systems, the integration of robots in our everyday life is increasing. However, when interacting in such complex human environments, the occasional failure of robotic systems is inevitable. The field of explainable AI has sought to make complex-decision making systems more interpretable but most existing techniques target domain experts. On the contrary, in many failure cases, robots will require recovery assistance from non-expert users. In this work, we introduce a new type of explanation, that explains the cause of an unexpected failure during an agents plan execution to non-experts. In order for error explanations to be meaningful, we investigate what types of information within a set of hand-scripted explanations are most helpful to non-experts for failure and solution identification. Additionally, we investigate how such explanations can be autonomously generated, extending an existing encoder-decoder model, and generalized across environments. We investigate such questions in the context of a robot performing a pick-and-place manipulation task in the home environment. Our results show that explanations capturing the context of a failure and history of past actions, are the most effective for failure and solution identification among non-experts. Furthermore, through a second user evaluation, we verify that our model-generated explanations can generalize to an unseen office environment, and are just as effective as the hand-scripted explanations.
rate research
Read More
With the growing capabilities of intelligent systems, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and robots in everyday life is increasing. However, when interacting in such complex human environments, the failure of intelligent systems, such as robots, can be inevitable, requiring recovery assistance from users. In this work, we develop automated, natural language explanations for failures encountered during an AI agents plan execution. These explanations are developed with a focus of helping non-expert users understand different point of failures to better provide recovery assistance. Specifically, we introduce a context-based information type for explanations that can both help non-expert users understand the underlying cause of a system failure, and select proper failure recoveries. Additionally, we extend an existing sequence-to-sequence methodology to automatically generate our context-based explanations. By doing so, we are able develop a model that can generalize context-based explanations over both different failure types and failure scenarios.
Explainability has been a goal for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems since their conception, with the need for explainability growing as more complex AI models are increasingly used in critical, high-stakes settings such as healthcare. Explanations have often added to an AI system in a non-principled, post-hoc manner. With greater adoption of these systems and emphasis on user-centric explainability, there is a need for a structured representation that treats explainability as a primary consideration, mapping end user needs to specific explanation types and the systems AI capabilities. We design an explanation ontology to model both the role of explanations, accounting for the system and user attributes in the process, and the range of different literature-derived explanation types. We indicate how the ontology can support user requirements for explanations in the domain of healthcare. We evaluate our ontology with a set of competency questions geared towards a system designer who might use our ontology to decide which explanation types to include, given a combination of users needs and a systems capabilities, both in system design settings and in real-time operations. Through the use of this ontology, system designers will be able to make informed choices on which explanations AI systems can and should provide.
Prior work on generating explanations in a planning and decision-making context has focused on providing the rationale behind an AI agents decision making. While these methods provide the right explanations from the explainers perspective, they fail to heed the cognitive requirement of understanding an explanation from the explainees (the humans) perspective. In this work, we set out to address this issue by first considering the influence of information order in an explanation, or the progressiveness of explanations. Intuitively, progression builds later concepts on previous ones and is known to contribute to better learning. In this work, we aim to investigate similar effects during explanation generation when an explanation is broken into multiple parts that are communicated sequentially. The challenge here lies in modeling the humans preferences for information order in receiving such explanations to assist understanding. Given this sequential process, a formulation based on goal-based MDP for generating progressive explanations is presented. The reward function of this MDP is learned via inverse reinforcement learning based on explanations that are retrieved via human subject studies. We first evaluated our approach on a scavenger-hunt domain to demonstrate its effectively in capturing the humans preferences. Upon analyzing the results, it revealed something more fundamental: the preferences arise strongly from both domain dependent and independence features. The correlation with domain independent features pushed us to verify this result further in an escape room domain. Results confirmed our hypothesis that the process of understanding an explanation was a dynamic process. The human preference that reflected this aspect corresponded exactly to the progression for knowledge assimilation hidden deeper in our cognitive process.
Explainability of AI systems is critical for users to take informed actions and hold systems accountable. While opening the opaque box is important, understanding who opens the box can govern if the Human-AI interaction is effective. In this paper, we conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups of whos--people with and without a background in AI--perceive different types of AI explanations. These groups were chosen to look at how disparities in AI backgrounds can exacerbate the creator-consumer gap. We quantitatively share what the perceptions are along five dimensions: confidence, intelligence, understandability, second chance, and friendliness. Qualitatively, we highlight how the AI background influences each groups interpretations and elucidate why the differences might exist through the lenses of appropriation and cognitive heuristics. We find that (1) both groups had unwarranted faith in numbers, to different extents and for different reasons, (2) each group found explanatory values in different explanations that went beyond the usage we designed them for, and (3) each group had different requirements of what counts as humanlike explanations. Using our findings, we discuss potential negative consequences such as harmful manipulation of user trust and propose design interventions to mitigate them. By bringing conscious awareness to how and why AI backgrounds shape perceptions of potential creators and consumers in XAI, our work takes a formative step in advancing a pluralistic Human-centered Explainable AI discourse.
AI systems have seen significant adoption in various domains. At the same time, further adoption in some domains is hindered by inability to fully trust an AI system that it will not harm a human. Besides the concerns for fairness, privacy, transparency, and explainability are key to developing trusts in AI systems. As stated in describing trustworthy AI Trust comes through understanding. How AI-led decisions are made and what determining factors were included are crucial to understand. The subarea of explaining AI systems has come to be known as XAI. Multiple aspects of an AI system can be explained; these include biases that the data might have, lack of data points in a particular region of the example space, fairness of gathering the data, feature importances, etc. However, besides these, it is critical to have human-centered explanations that are directly related to decision-making similar to how a domain expert makes decisions based on domain knowledge, that also include well-established, peer-validated explicit guidelines. To understand and validate an AI systems outcomes (such as classification, recommendations, predictions), that lead to developing trust in the AI system, it is necessary to involve explicit domain knowledge that humans understand and use.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
