Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Contrastive Explanations of Centralized Multi-agent Optimization Solutions (2308.05984v2)

Published 11 Aug 2023 in cs.AI

Abstract: In many real-world scenarios, agents are involved in optimization problems. Since most of these scenarios are over-constrained, optimal solutions do not always satisfy all agents. Some agents might be unhappy and ask questions of the form ``Why does solution $S$ not satisfy property $P$?''. We propose CMAoE, a domain-independent approach to obtain contrastive explanations by: (i) generating a new solution $S\prime$ where property $P$ is enforced, while also minimizing the differences between $S$ and $S\prime$; and (ii) highlighting the differences between the two solutions, with respect to the features of the objective function of the multi-agent system. Such explanations aim to help agents understanding why the initial solution is better in the context of the multi-agent system than what they expected. We have carried out a computational evaluation that shows that CMAoE can generate contrastive explanations for large multi-agent optimization problems. We have also performed an extensive user study in four different domains that shows that: (i) after being presented with these explanations, humans' satisfaction with the original solution increases; and (ii) the constrastive explanations generated by CMAoE are preferred or equally preferred by humans over the ones generated by state of the art approaches.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (23)
  1. Dealing with service failures: The use of explanations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(2): 129–143.
  2. Plan Explanations as Model Reconciliation: Moving Beyond Explanation as Soliloquy. In IJCAI.
  3. Chinneck, J. W. 2007. Feasibility and Infeasibility in Optimization:: Algorithms and Computational Methods, volume 118. Springer Science & Business Media.
  4. Argumentation for Explainable Scheduling. In The 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The 35tht Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, 2752–2759. AAAI Press.
  5. CBC user guide. In Emerging theory, methods, and applications, 257–277. INFORMS.
  6. Metrics for explainable AI: Challenges and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04608.
  7. Junker, U. 2004. QUICKXPLAIN: Preferred Explanations and Relaxations for Over-Constrained Problems. In McGuinness, D. L.; and Ferguson, G., eds., Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sixteenth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, July 25-29, 2004, San Jose, California, USA, 167–172. AAAI Press / The MIT Press.
  8. Counterfactual Explanations via Inverse Constraint Programming. In Michel, L. D., ed., 27th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, CP 2021, Montpellier, France (Virtual Conference), October 25-29, 2021, volume 210 of LIPIcs, 35:1–35:16. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
  9. Counterfactual Explanations for Optimization-Based Decisions in the Context of the GDPR. In Zhou, Z., ed., Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2021, Virtual Event / Montreal, Canada, 19-27 August 2021, 4097–4103. ijcai.org.
  10. The Placebo Effect of Artificial Intelligence in Human–Computer Interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 29(6): 1–32.
  11. Contrastive Explanations of Plans Through Model Restrictions. CoRR, abs/2103.15575.
  12. AI for explaining decisions in multi-agent environments. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, 13534–13538.
  13. Why and why not explanations improve the intelligibility of context-aware intelligent systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2119–2128.
  14. Lipton, P. 1990. Contrastive explanation. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 27: 247–266.
  15. Miller, T. 2019. Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences. Artif. Intell., 267: 1–38.
  16. Miller, T. 2021. Contrastive explanation: A structural-model approach. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 36.
  17. PuLP: a linear programming toolkit for python. The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 65.
  18. Finding the Minimum Weight IIS Cover of an Infeasible System of Linear Inequalities. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 17(1-2): 107–126.
  19. Explaining Preference-Driven Schedules: The EXPRES Framework. In Kumar, A.; Thiébaux, S.; Varakantham, P.; and Yeoh, W., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd ICAPS 2022, Singapore (virtual), June 13-24, 2022, 710–718. AAAI Press.
  20. Understanding Consumer Preferences for Explanations Generated by XAI Algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02624.
  21. Denied by an (Unexplainable) Algorithm: Teleological Explanations for Algorithmic Decisions Enhance Customer Satisfaction.
  22. A Logic-Based Framework for Explainable Agent Scheduling Problems. In Gal, K.; Nowé, A.; Nalepa, G. J.; Fairstein, R.; and Radulescu, R., eds., ECAI 2023 - 26th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, September 30 - October 4, 2023, Kraków, Poland - Including 12th Conference on Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems (PAIS 2023), volume 372 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 2402–2410. IOS Press.
  23. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harv. JL & Tech., 31: 841.
Citations (4)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Whiteboard

Paper to Video (Beta)

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.