Approximating Human Models During Argumentation-based Dialogues

Overview

• The paper proposes a novel framework for Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic model of human mental states through argumentation-based dialogues.
• The key challenge addressed is model reconciliation, which aims to align the mental models of AI agents and humans.
• The approach incorporates trust-based and certainty-based update mechanisms, allowing the agent to refine its understanding of the human's mental state based on the human's expressed trust and certainty.
• The researchers conduct a human-subject study to evaluate the effectiveness of their approach in an argumentation scenario.

Plain English Explanation

The paper is about making AI systems that can explain their decisions and actions to human users in a way that builds trust and enables effective collaboration. A key challenge in this field, known as Explainable AI Planning (XAIP), is model reconciliation - aligning the mental models of the AI system and the human user.

Existing approaches often assume the human's mental model is known and deterministic, but this may not capture the complexities and uncertainties of real-world interactions. The researchers propose a new framework that allows the AI system to learn and update a probabilistic model of the human's mental state through conversations.

The system uses the human's expressed trust in the AI's arguments and certainty in their own arguments to refine its understanding of the human's beliefs and reasoning. This is inspired by prospect theory, which describes how people's perceptions of probability are influenced by factors like trust.

The researchers conducted a study where humans interacted with the AI system in an argumentation scenario. This allowed them to evaluate how well the system could capture the dynamics of human belief formation and adaptation, which is an important step towards more human-centric and trustworthy AI systems.

Technical Explanation

The paper presents a novel framework for Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic model of human mental states through argumentation-based dialogues. The key challenge addressed is model reconciliation, which seeks to align the mental models of AI agents and humans.

The approach incorporates trust-based and certainty-based update mechanisms, allowing the agent to refine its understanding of the human's mental state based on the human's expressed trust in the agent's arguments and certainty in their own arguments. The researchers employ a probability weighting function inspired by prospect theory to capture the relationship between trust and perceived probability, and use a Bayesian approach to update the agent's probability distribution over possible human models.

The researchers conducted a human-subject study to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of their approach in an argumentation scenario. The study allowed them to demonstrate the system's ability to capture the dynamics of human belief formation and adaptation, which is an important step towards more human-centric and trustworthy AI systems.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a promising approach to Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) that addresses the challenge of model reconciliation by allowing the AI agent to learn and update a probabilistic model of the human's mental state.

However, the researchers acknowledge that their study was limited to a specific argumentation scenario, and further research is needed to understand how the approach would perform in more complex, real-world interactions. Additionally, the human-centric and trustworthy AI systems proposed in the paper may still face challenges in unraveling the dilemma of AI errors and ensuring appropriate levels of trust and transparency in high-stakes scenarios.

Future research could explore ways to expand the model to handle a wider range of human behaviors and interaction dynamics, as well as investigate the scalability and robustness of the approach in more diverse and challenging real-world settings.

Conclusion

The paper proposes a novel framework for Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic model of human mental states through argumentation-based dialogues. This addresses the key challenge of model reconciliation and represents an important step towards more human-centric and trustworthy AI systems.

The empirical evaluation of the approach in an argumentation scenario demonstrates its ability to capture the dynamics of human belief formation and adaptation. While further research is needed to expand the model and test its performance in more complex, real-world settings, this work contributes valuable insights to the ongoing efforts to improve the onboarding of health professionals to AI systems and unravel the dilemma of AI errors in a way that fosters trust and collaboration between humans and AI agents.