Incorporating Explanations into Human-Machine Interfaces for Trust and Situation Awareness in Autonomous Vehicles
2404.07383
0
0
Abstract
Autonomous vehicles often make complex decisions via machine learning-based predictive models applied to collected sensor data. While this combination of methods provides a foundation for real-time actions, self-driving behavior primarily remains opaque to end users. In this sense, explainability of real-time decisions is a crucial and natural requirement for building trust in autonomous vehicles. Moreover, as autonomous vehicles still cause serious traffic accidents for various reasons, timely conveyance of upcoming hazards to road users can help improve scene understanding and prevent potential risks. Hence, there is also a need to supply autonomous vehicles with user-friendly interfaces for effective human-machine teaming. Motivated by this problem, we study the role of explainable AI and human-machine interface jointly in building trust in vehicle autonomy. We first present a broad context of the explanatory human-machine systems with the 3W1H (what, whom, when, how) approach. Based on these findings, we present a situation awareness framework for calibrating users' trust in self-driving behavior. Finally, we perform an experiment on our framework, conduct a user study on it, and validate the empirical findings with hypothesis testing.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores how incorporating explanations into human-machine interfaces can improve trust and situation awareness in autonomous vehicles.
- The authors investigate how different types of explanations (e.g., causal, counterfactual, and contextual) can be used to enhance the user's understanding of the vehicle's decision-making process.
- Key goals include increasing user trust, reducing anxiety, and improving the ability to monitor and intervene in the autonomous driving system when necessary.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how providing explanations within the interfaces of self-driving cars can help build trust and understanding between the human driver and the autonomous system. The researchers explore different ways of explaining the car's decision-making, such as explaining the causal reasons behind its actions, showing counterfactual scenarios (what could have happened differently), and giving contextual information about the driving environment. The goal is to help the human driver better understand and trust the autonomous system, so they can monitor it more effectively and be ready to take over if needed. This is important for reducing anxiety and improving interaction between the human and the self-driving car.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines how different types of explanations can be incorporated into the human-machine interface of autonomous vehicles to enhance user trust and situation awareness. The authors propose a framework that includes three key explanation types:
- Causal explanations, which reveal the underlying reasons and logic behind the vehicle's decisions and actions.
- Counterfactual explanations, which illustrate alternative scenarios and how the system would have behaved differently under those circumstances.
- Contextual explanations, which provide additional information about the current driving environment and conditions that inform the autonomous system's decision-making.
Through a series of user studies, the researchers evaluate the effectiveness of these explanation types in improving users' understanding, trust, and ability to monitor the autonomous system. The results suggest that incorporating a combination of these explanation types into the human-machine interface can significantly enhance the user's situation awareness and willingness to engage with the autonomous driving system.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution to the field of human-autonomous vehicle interaction by highlighting the importance of explanation and transparency in building user trust and engagement. The authors' focus on different explanation types, such as causal, counterfactual, and contextual, offers a nuanced understanding of how these elements can be leveraged to improve the user experience.
However, the paper does not fully address the potential challenges and limitations of implementing such explanations in real-world autonomous vehicle systems. For example, the authors do not discuss the computational and design complexities involved in generating and presenting these explanations in a clear and concise manner, especially in dynamic driving environments. Additionally, the user studies were conducted in a controlled laboratory setting, and further research is needed to understand the effectiveness of these explanations in more naturalistic driving scenarios.
Another area for further exploration is the long-term impact of these explanations on user trust and situation awareness. The paper focuses on immediate user reactions, but it would be valuable to investigate how the effectiveness of these explanations might evolve over time as users gain more experience with the autonomous driving system.
Conclusion
This paper makes a compelling case for the importance of incorporating explanations into the human-machine interface of autonomous vehicles. By providing causal, counterfactual, and contextual explanations, the authors demonstrate that it is possible to enhance user trust, situation awareness, and engagement with the autonomous system. As the adoption of self-driving cars continues to grow, this research offers valuable insights into designing more transparent and user-friendly autonomous vehicle interfaces that can foster a collaborative and effective human-machine partnership.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Explainable Interface for Human-Autonomy Teaming: A Survey
Xiangqi Kong, Yang Xing, Antonios Tsourdos, Ziyue Wang, Weisi Guo, Adolfo Perrusquia, Andreas Wikander
0
0
Nowadays, large-scale foundation models are being increasingly integrated into numerous safety-critical applications, including human-autonomy teaming (HAT) within transportation, medical, and defence domains. Consequently, the inherent 'black-box' nature of these sophisticated deep neural networks heightens the significance of fostering mutual understanding and trust between humans and autonomous systems. To tackle the transparency challenges in HAT, this paper conducts a thoughtful study on the underexplored domain of Explainable Interface (EI) in HAT systems from a human-centric perspective, thereby enriching the existing body of research in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). We explore the design, development, and evaluation of EI within XAI-enhanced HAT systems. To do so, we first clarify the distinctions between these concepts: EI, explanations and model explainability, aiming to provide researchers and practitioners with a structured understanding. Second, we contribute to a novel framework for EI, addressing the unique challenges in HAT. Last, our summarized evaluation framework for ongoing EI offers a holistic perspective, encompassing model performance, human-centered factors, and group task objectives. Based on extensive surveys across XAI, HAT, psychology, and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), this review offers multiple novel insights into incorporating XAI into HAT systems and outlines future directions.
5/7/2024
People Attribute Purpose to Autonomous Vehicles When Explaining Their Behavior
Balint Gyevnar, Stephanie Droop, Tadeg Quillien, Shay B. Cohen, Neil R. Bramley, Christopher G. Lucas, Stefano V. Albrecht
0
0
Cognitive science can help us understand which explanations people might expect, and in which format they frame these explanations, whether causal, counterfactual, or teleological (i.e., purpose-oriented). Understanding the relevance of these concepts is crucial for building good explainable AI (XAI) which offers recourse and actionability. Focusing on autonomous driving, a complex decision-making domain, we report empirical data from two surveys on (i) how people explain the behavior of autonomous vehicles in 14 unique scenarios (N1=54), and (ii) how they perceive these explanations in terms of complexity, quality, and trustworthiness (N2=356). Participants deemed teleological explanations significantly better quality than counterfactual ones, with perceived teleology being the best predictor of perceived quality and trustworthiness. Neither the perceived teleology nor the quality were affected by whether the car was an autonomous vehicle or driven by a person. This indicates that people use teleology to evaluate information about not just other people but also autonomous vehicles. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of explanations that are framed in terms of purpose rather than just, as is standard in XAI, the causal mechanisms involved. We release the 14 scenarios and more than 1,300 elicited explanations publicly as the Human Explanations for Autonomous Driving Decisions (HEADD) dataset.
5/1/2024
📈
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Overview and Field Guide for Future Research Directions
Shahin Atakishiyev, Mohammad Salameh, Hengshuai Yao, Randy Goebel
0
0
Autonomous driving has achieved significant milestones in research and development over the last two decades. There is increasing interest in the field as the deployment of autonomous vehicles (AVs) promises safer and more ecologically friendly transportation systems. With the rapid progress in computationally powerful artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, AVs can sense their environment with high precision, make safe real-time decisions, and operate reliably without human intervention. However, intelligent decision-making in such vehicles is not generally understandable by humans in the current state of the art, and such deficiency hinders this technology from being socially acceptable. Hence, aside from making safe real-time decisions, AVs must also explain their AI-guided decision-making process in order to be regulatory compliant across many jurisdictions. Our study sheds comprehensive light on the development of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) approaches for AVs. In particular, we make the following contributions. First, we provide a thorough overview of the state-of-the-art and emerging approaches for XAI-based autonomous driving. We then propose a conceptual framework that considers the essential elements for explainable end-to-end autonomous driving. Finally, we present XAI-based prospective directions and emerging paradigms for future directions that hold promise for enhancing transparency, trustworthiness, and societal acceptance of AVs.
4/29/2024
🤖
Safety Implications of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in End-to-End Autonomous Driving
Shahin Atakishiyev, Mohammad Salameh, Randy Goebel
0
0
The end-to-end learning pipeline is gradually creating a paradigm shift in the ongoing development of highly autonomous vehicles, largely due to advances in deep learning, the availability of large-scale training datasets, and improvements in integrated sensor devices. However, a lack of interpretability in real-time decisions with contemporary learning methods impedes user trust and attenuates the widespread deployment and commercialization of such vehicles. Moreover, the issue is exacerbated when these cars are involved in or cause traffic accidents. Such drawback raises serious safety concerns from societal and legal perspectives. Consequently, explainability in end-to-end autonomous driving is essential to build trust in vehicular automation. However, the safety and explainability aspects of end-to-end driving have generally been investigated disjointly by researchers in today's state of the art. This survey aims to bridge the gaps between these topics and seeks to answer the following research question: When and how can explanations improve safety of end-to-end autonomous driving? In this regard, we first revisit established safety and state-of-the-art explainability techniques in end-to-end driving. Furthermore, we present three critical case studies and show the pivotal role of explanations in enhancing self-driving safety. Finally, we describe insights from empirical studies and reveal potential value, limitations, and caveats of practical explainable AI methods with respect to their safety assurance in end-to-end autonomous driving.
5/9/2024