In human-aware planning problems, the planning agent may need to explain its plan to a human user, especially when the plan appears infeasible or suboptimal for the user. A popular approach to do so is called model reconciliation, where the planning agent tries to reconcile the differences between its model and the model of the user such that its plan is also feasible and optimal to the user. This problem can be viewed as an optimization problem, where the goal is to find a subset-minimal explanation that one can use to modify the model of the user such that the plan of the agent is also feasible and optimal to the user. This paper presents an algorithm for solving such problems using answer set programming.

No abstract

In human-aware planning systems, a planning agent might need to explain its plan to a human user when that plan appears to be non-feasible or sub-optimal. A popular approach, called model reconciliation, has been proposed as a way to bring the model of the human user closer to the agent’s model. To do so, the agent provides an explanation that can be used to update the model of human such that the agent’s plan is feasible or optimal to the human user. Existing approaches to solve this problem have been based on automated planning methods and have been limited to classical planning problems only. In this paper, we approach the model reconciliation problem from a different perspective, that of knowledge representation and reasoning, and demonstrate that our approach can be applied not only to classical planning problems but also hybrid systems planning problems with durative actions and events/processes. In particular, we propose a logic-based framework for explanation generation, where given a knowledge base KBa (of an agent) and a knowledge base KBh (of a human user), each encoding their knowledge of a planning problem, and that KBa entails a query q (e.g., that a proposed plan of the agent is valid), the goal is to identify an explanation ε ⊆ KBa such that when it is used to update KBh, then the updated KBh also entails q. More specifically, we make the following contributions in this paper: (1) We formally define the notion of logic-based explanations in the context of model reconciliation problems; (2) We introduce a number of cost functions that can be used to reflect preferences between explanations; (3) We present algorithms to compute explanations for both classical planning and hybrid systems planning problems; and (4) We empirically evaluate their performance on such problems. Our empirical results demonstrate that, on classical planning problems, our approach is faster than the state of the art when the explanations are long or when the size of the knowledge base is small (e.g., the plans to be explained are short). They also demonstrate that our approach is efficient for hybrid systems planning problems. Finally, we evaluate the real-world efficacy of explanations generated by our algorithms through a controlled human user study, where we develop a proof-of-concept visualization system and use it as a medium for explanation communication.

In human-aware planning, a planning agent may need to provide an explanation to a human user on why its plan is optimal. A popular approach to do this is called model reconciliation, where the agent tries to reconcile the differences in its model and the human's model such that the plan is also optimal in the human's model. In this paper, we present a logic-based framework for model reconciliation that extends beyond the realm of planning. More specifically, given a knowledge base KB1 entailing a formula phi and a second knowledge base KB2 not entailing it, model reconciliation seeks an explanation, in the form of a cardinality-minimal subset of KB1, whose integration into KB2 makes the entailment possible. Our approach, based on ideas originating in the context of analysis of inconsistencies, exploits the existing hitting set duality between minimal correction sets (MCSes) and minimal unsatisfiable sets (MUSes) in order to identify an appropriate explanation. However, differently from those works targeting inconsistent formulas, which assume a single knowledge base, MCSes and MUSes are computed over two distinct knowledge bases. We conclude our paper with an empirical evaluation of the newly introduced approach on planning instances, where we show how it outperforms an existing state-of-the-art solver, and generic non-planning instances from recent SAT competitions, for which no other solver exists.

Advancements in explanation generation for automated planning algorithms have moved us a step closer towards realizing the full potential of human-AI collaboration in real-world planning applications. Within this context, a framework called model reconciliation has gained a lot of traction, mostly due to its deep connection with a popular theory in human psychology, known as the theory of mind. Existing literature in this setting, however, has mostly been constrained to algorithmic contributions for generating explanations. To the best of our knowledge, there has been very little work on how to effectively convey such explanations to human users, a critical component in human-AI collaboration systems. In this paper, we set out to explore to what extent visualizations are an effective candidate for conveying explanations in a way that can be easily understood. Particularly, by drawing inspiration from work done in visualization systems for classical planning, we propose a visualization framework for visualizing explanations generated from model reconciliation algorithms. We demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed system in a comprehensive user study, where we compare our framework against a text-based baseline for two types of explanations – domain-based and problem-based explanations. Results from the user study show that users, on average, understood explanations better when they are conveyed via our visualization system compared to when they are conveyed via a text-based baseline.