Speech-plans: Generating evaluative responses in spoken dialogue

Recent work on evaluation of spoken dialogue systems indicates that better algorithms are needed for the presentation of complex information in speech. Current dialogue systems often rely on presenting sets of options and their attributes sequentially. This places a large memory burden on users, who have to remember complex trade-offs between multiple options and their attributes. To address these problems we build on previous work using multiattribute decision theory to devise speech-planning algorithms that present usertailored summaries, comparisons and recommendations that allow users to focus on critical differences between options and their attributes. We discuss the differences between speech and text planning that result from the particular demands of the speech situation.

A Plan-Based Model for Response Generation in Collaborative Task-Oriented Dialogues

This paper presents a plan-based architecture for response generation in collaborative consultation dialogues, with emphasis on cases in which the system (consultant) and user (executing agent) disagree. Our work contributes to an overall system for collaborative problem-solving by providing a plan-based framework that captures the {\em Propose-Evaluate-Modify} cycle of collaboration, and by allowing the system to initiate subdialogues to negotiate proposed additions to the shared plan and to provide support for its claims. In addition, our system handles in a unified manner the negotiation of proposed domain actions, proposed problem-solving actions, and beliefs proposed by discourse actions. Furthermore, it captures cooperative responses within the collaborative framework and accounts for why questions are sometimes never answered.Comment: 8 pages, to appear in the Proceedings of AAAI-94. LaTeX source file, requires aaai.sty and epsf.tex. Figures included in separate file

Clash of the Explainers: Argumentation for Context-Appropriate Explanations

Understanding when and why to apply any given eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique is not a straightforward task. There is no single approach that is best suited for a given context. This paper aims to address the challenge of selecting the most appropriate explainer given the context in which an explanation is required. For AI explainability to be effective, explanations and how they are presented needs to be oriented towards the stakeholder receiving the explanation. If -- in general -- no single explanation technique surpasses the rest, then reasoning over the available methods is required in order to select one that is context-appropriate. Due to the transparency they afford, we propose employing argumentation techniques to reach an agreement over the most suitable explainers from a given set of possible explainers. In this paper, we propose a modular reasoning system consisting of a given mental model of the relevant stakeholder, a reasoner component that solves the argumentation problem generated by a multi-explainer component, and an AI model that is to be explained suitably to the stakeholder of interest. By formalising supporting premises -- and inferences -- we can map stakeholder characteristics to those of explanation techniques. This allows us to reason over the techniques and prioritise the best one for the given context, while also offering transparency into the selection decision.Comment: 17 pages, 3 figures, Accepted at XAI^3 Workshop at ECAI 202

Notions of explainability and evaluation approaches for explainable artificial intelligence

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has experienced a significant growth over the last few years. This is due to the widespread application of machine learning, particularly deep learning, that has led to the development of highly accurate models that lack explainability and interpretability. A plethora of methods to tackle this problem have been proposed, developed and tested, coupled with several studies attempting to define the concept of explainability and its evaluation. This systematic review contributes to the body of knowledge by clustering all the scientific studies via a hierarchical system that classifies theories and notions related to the concept of explainability and the evaluation approaches for XAI methods. The structure of this hierarchy builds on top of an exhaustive analysis of existing taxonomies and peer-reviewed scientific material. Findings suggest that scholars have identified numerous notions and requirements that an explanation should meet in order to be easily understandable by end-users and to provide actionable information that can inform decision making. They have also suggested various approaches to assess to what degree machine-generated explanations meet these demands. Overall, these approaches can be clustered into human-centred evaluations and evaluations with more objective metrics. However, despite the vast body of knowledge developed around the concept of explainability, there is not a general consensus among scholars on how an explanation should be defined, and how its validity and reliability assessed. Eventually, this review concludes by critically discussing these gaps and limitations, and it defines future research directions with explainability as the starting component of any artificial intelligent system

Influence of context on users’ views about explanations for decision-tree predictions

This research was supported in part by grant DP190100006 from the Australian Research Council. Ethics approval for the user studies was obtained from Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID-24208). We thank Marko Bohanec, one of the creators of the Nursery dataset, for helping us understand the features and their values. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.Peer reviewedPostprin