Expectation-Aware Planning: A Unifying Framework for Synthesizing and Executing Self-Explaining Plans for Human-Aware Planning

In this work, we present a new planning formalism called Expectation-Aware planning for decision making with humans in the loop where the human's expectations about an agent may differ from the agent's own model. We show how this formulation allows agents to not only leverage existing strategies for handling model differences but can also exhibit novel behaviors that are generated through the combination of these different strategies. Our formulation also reveals a deep connection to existing approaches in epistemic planning. Specifically, we show how we can leverage classical planning compilations for epistemic planning to solve Expectation-Aware planning problems. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed formulation is the first complete solution to decision-making in the presence of diverging user expectations that is amenable to a classical planning compilation while successfully combining previous works on explanation and explicability. We empirically show how our approach provides a computational advantage over existing approximate approaches that unnecessarily try to search in the space of models while also failing to facilitate the full gamut of behaviors enabled by our framework

Explainable Planning

As AI is increasingly being adopted into application solutions, the challenge of supporting interaction with humans is becoming more apparent. Partly this is to support integrated working styles, in which humans and intelligent systems cooperate in problem-solving, but also it is a necessary step in the process of building trust as humans migrate greater responsibility to such systems. The challenge is to find effective ways to communicate the foundations of AI-driven behaviour, when the algorithms that drive it are far from transparent to humans. In this paper we consider the opportunities that arise in AI planning, exploiting the model-based representations that form a familiar and common basis for communication with users, while acknowledging the gap between planning algorithms and human problem-solving.Comment: Presented at the IJCAI-17 workshop on Explainable AI (http://home.earthlink.net/~dwaha/research/meetings/ijcai17-xai/). Melbourne, August 201

Local and Global Explanations of Agent Behavior: Integrating Strategy Summaries with Saliency Maps

With advances in reinforcement learning (RL), agents are now being developed in high-stakes application domains such as healthcare and transportation. Explaining the behavior of these agents is challenging, as the environments in which they act have large state spaces, and their decision-making can be affected by delayed rewards, making it difficult to analyze their behavior. To address this problem, several approaches have been developed. Some approaches attempt to convey the $\textit{global}$ behavior of the agent, describing the actions it takes in different states. Other approaches devised $\textit{local}$ explanations which provide information regarding the agent's decision-making in a particular state. In this paper, we combine global and local explanation methods, and evaluate their joint and separate contributions, providing (to the best of our knowledge) the first user study of combined local and global explanations for RL agents. Specifically, we augment strategy summaries that extract important trajectories of states from simulations of the agent with saliency maps which show what information the agent attends to. Our results show that the choice of what states to include in the summary (global information) strongly affects people's understanding of agents: participants shown summaries that included important states significantly outperformed participants who were presented with agent behavior in a randomly set of chosen world-states. We find mixed results with respect to augmenting demonstrations with saliency maps (local information), as the addition of saliency maps did not significantly improve performance in most cases. However, we do find some evidence that saliency maps can help users better understand what information the agent relies on in its decision making, suggesting avenues for future work that can further improve explanations of RL agents

CBR and MBR techniques: review for an application in the emergencies domain

The purpose of this document is to provide an in-depth analysis of current reasoning engine practice and the integration strategies of Case Based Reasoning and Model Based Reasoning that will be used in the design and development of the RIMSAT system. RIMSAT (Remote Intelligent Management Support and Training) is a European Commission funded project designed to: a.. Provide an innovative, 'intelligent', knowledge based solution aimed at improving the quality of critical decisions b.. Enhance the competencies and responsiveness of individuals and organisations involved in highly complex, safety critical incidents - irrespective of their location. In other words, RIMSAT aims to design and implement a decision support system that using Case Base Reasoning as well as Model Base Reasoning technology is applied in the management of emergency situations. This document is part of a deliverable for RIMSAT project, and although it has been done in close contact with the requirements of the project, it provides an overview wide enough for providing a state of the art in integration strategies between CBR and MBR technologies.Postprint (published version

Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

[EN] Nowadays, Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are broadening their applications to open environments, where heterogeneous agents could enter into the system, form agents’ organizations and interact. The high dynamism of open MAS gives rise to potential conflicts between agents and thus, to a need for a mechanism to reach agreements. Argumentation is a natural way of harmonizing conflicts of opinion that has been applied to many disciplines, such as Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) and MAS. Some approaches that apply CBR to manage argumentation in MAS have been proposed in the literature. These improve agents’ argumentation skills by allowing them to reason and learn from experiences. In this paper, we have reviewed these approaches and identified the current contributions of the CBR methodology in this area. As a result of this work, we have proposed several open issues that must be taken into consideration to develop a CBR framework that provides the agents of an open MAS with arguing and learning capabilities.This work was partially supported by CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 under grant CSD2007-00022 and by the Spanish government and FEDER funds under TIN2006-14630-C0301 project.Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2009). Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS. Knowledge Engineering Review. 24(4):327-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888909990178S327352244Willmott S. , Vreeswijk G. , Chesñevar C. , South M. , McGinnis J. , Modgil S. , Rahwan I. , Reed C. , Simari G. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format for multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AAMAS International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 17–34.Sycara, K. P. (1990). Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision, 28(3), 203-242. doi:10.1007/bf00162699Ontañón S. , Plaza E. 2006. Arguments and counterexamples in case-based joint deliberation. In AAMAS-06 Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 36–53.Sadri F. , Toni F. , Torroni P. 2001. Dialogues for negotiation: agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, ATAL-01, Intelligent Agents VIII 2333, 405–421. Springer.Fox J. , Parsons S. 1998. Arguing about beliefs and actions. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1455, 266–302. Springer.Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321-357. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-xAulinas M. , Tolchinsky P. , Turon C. , Poch M. , Cortés U. 2007. Is my spill environmentally safe? Towards an integrated management of wastewater in a river basin using agents that can argue. In 7th International IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis and Integrated Assessment in Water Management. Washington DC, USA.Amgoud L. 2003. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2711, 552–563. Springer.Armengol E. , Plaza E. 2001. Lazy induction of descriptions for relational case-based learning. In European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML-01, 13–24.Sørmo, F., Cassens, J., & Aamodt, A. (2005). Explanation in Case-Based Reasoning–Perspectives and Goals. Artificial Intelligence Review, 24(2), 109-143. doi:10.1007/s10462-005-4607-7RAHWAN, I., RAMCHURN, S. D., JENNINGS, N. R., McBURNEY, P., PARSONS, S., & SONENBERG, L. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343-375. doi:10.1017/s0269888904000098Brüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2001. Improving the representation of legal case texts with information extraction methods. In 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-01, 42–51.Parsons, S. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261-292. doi:10.1093/logcom/8.3.261Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & Mcburney, P. (2005). A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 153-171. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1166-xBrüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2003. Predicting the outcome of case-based legal arguments. In 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-03, 233–242.Modgil S. , Tolchinsky P. , Cortés U. 2005. Towards formalising agent argumentation over the viability of human organs for transplantation. In 4th Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MICAI-05, 928–938.Tolchinsky P. , Atkinson K. , McBurney P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. 2007. Agents deliberating over action proposals using the ProCLAIM model. In 5th International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, CEEMAS-07, 32–41.Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2/4), 231-287. doi:10.1023/a:1008278309945Gordon T. F. , Karacapilidis N. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, ACM Press, 10–18.Tolchinsky P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. 2006a. Argument schemes and critical questions for heterogeneous agents to argue over the viability of a human organ. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series; Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare, 377–384.Aleven V. , Ashley K. D. 1997. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In 8th World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society, 87–94.Rahwan, I. (2005). Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 115-125. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-3079-0RISSLAND, E. L., ASHLEY, K. D., & BRANTING, L. K. (2005). Case-based reasoning and law. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 293-298. doi:10.1017/s0269888906000701Tolchinsky, P., Cortes, U., Modgil, S., Caballero, F., & Lopez-Navidad, A. (2006). Increasing Human-Organ Transplant Availability: Argumentation-Based Agent Deliberation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(6), 30-37. doi:10.1109/mis.2006.116McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S. (2006). The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95-132. doi:10.1002/int.20191Rissland, E. L., Ashley, K. D., & Loui, R. P. (2003). AI and Law: A fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 1-15. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00122-xSoh, L.-K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A Real-Time Negotiation Model and A Multi-Agent Sensor Network Implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215-271. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-0539-5Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C. I., & Simari, G. R. (2005). Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 127-151. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1354-8Tolchinsky P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. , Sànchez-Marrè M. 2006b. CBR and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA-06, 144, 71–82. IOS Press.Ossowski S. , Julian V. , Bajo J. , Billhardt H. , Botti V. , Corchado J. M. 2007. Open issues in open MAS: an abstract architecture proposal. In Conferencia de la Asociacion Española para la Inteligencia Artificial, CAEPIA-07, 2, 151–160.Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259-277. doi:10.1016/s0306-4379(01)00020-5Aamodt A. 2004. Knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning in Creek. In 7th European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning ECCBR-04, 1–15.Jakobovits H. , Vermeir D. 1999. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-99, ACM Press, 53–62.Díaz-Agudo, B., & González-Calero, P. A. (s. f.). An Ontological Approach to Develop Knowledge Intensive CBR Systems. Ontologies, 173-213. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-37022-4_7Reed C. , Walton D. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-04, 173–188.Sycara K. 1989. Argumentation: planning other agents’ plans. In 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1, 517–523. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 619-641. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1-2), 81-132. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4Amgoud L. , Kaci S. 2004. On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3366, 192–207. Springer.CHESÑEVAR, C., MCGINNIS, MODGIL, S., RAHWAN, I., REED, C., SIMARI, G., … WILLMOTT, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293-316. doi:10.1017/s0269888906001044Rahwan I. , Amgoud L. 2006. An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-06, ACM Press, 347–354.Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730Soh L.-K. , Tsatsoulis C. 2001b. Reflective negotiating agents for real-time multisensor target tracking. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-01, 1121–1127.Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. doi:10.1515/9783110846089Rissland E. L. , Skalak D. B. , Friedman M. T. 1993. Bankxx: a program to generate argument through case-based search. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-93, 117–124.Sycara K. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods, PhD thesis, School of Information and Computer Science. Georgia Institute of Technology.Ontañón S. , Plaza E. 2007. Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-07, 971–978.Rissland, E. L., & Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 839-887. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-wDaniels J. J. , Rissland E. L. 1997. Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, 39–47.Brüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2005. Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts. In 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-05, 65–74.Simari G. R. , García A. J. , Capobianco M. 2004. Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 377–384.Soh L.-K. , Tsatsoulis C. 2001a. Agent-based argumentative negotiations with case-based reasoning. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, 16–25.Ashley, K. D. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 753-796. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-uHulstijn J. , van der Torre L. 2004, Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Argument, Dialogue and Decision. International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 212–218.Karacapilidis N. , Trousse B. , Papadias D. 1997. Using case-based reasoning for argumentation with multiple viewpoints. In 2nd International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR-97, 541–552.Branting, L. K. (1991). Building explanations from rules and structured cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 797-837. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90012-