Argument-Based Plan Explanation

Oren, Nir; Deemter, Kees van; Vasconcelos, Wamberto

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38561-3_9

Cited by 12 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, explaining -to a non-expert -why some set of strategies forms a Nash equilibrium is often difficult, and our argument-based interpretation is the first step towards an explanatory dialogue for such explanation. Other work has shown the utility of providing such dialogue-based explanations [4,7,12]. In the current context, such an explanation could build on Modgil's proof dialogues for extended argumentation frameworks [10], and could result in a dialogue as follows for the Stag hunt game shown in Figure 1.…”

Section: Discussion Related and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representing pure Nash equilibria in argumentation

Yun

Vesic

Oren

2022

AAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we describe an argumentation-based representation of normal form games, and demonstrate how argumentation can be used to compute pure strategy Nash equilibria. Our approach builds on Modgil’s Extended Argumentation Frameworks. We demonstrate its correctness, showprove several theoretical properties it satisfies, and outline how it can be used to explain why certain strategies are Nash equilibria to a non-expert human user.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Related and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representing pure Nash equilibria in argumentation

Yun

Vesic

Oren

2022

AAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other approaches [17] involve a textual description of the plan in natural language. Another related work [10] uses argumentation for explanations, providing mechanisms to construct arguments that can be useful to justify why a plan should be executed, note aspects of a plan, and exploit the use of causality for explanations.…”

Section: ) Design Of Outputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such explanations can then be offered to users upon request [10]. For space reasons, and since the user interface does not differ from typical ones in similar systems, we do not include details of this stage here.…”

Section: Case Study: P-delp-based Instantiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Architecture for Argumentation-Based Epistemic Planning: A First Approach With Contextual Preferences

Teze

Godo

2021

IEEE Intell. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation-based planning systems present an interesting proposal for complex and dynamic domains where defeasible argumentation is used in the reasoning processes used during the construction of plans by considering the available knowledge. In many real-world application scenarios, knowledge is provided with explicit priorities. Despite its importance, existing planning systems do not provide additional reasoning capacities of dynamically changing the preferences expressed by these priorities when a plan is being constructed. In this work, we present an argumentation and planning architecture, and propose a set of software engineering guidelines to analyze and design planning systems leveraging this capacity.

show abstract

“…The works that are closest to our research for generating plan explanations using argumentation are given in [5,18] and [8]. In [5,18], a dialectical proof based on the grounded semantics [4] is created to justify the actions executed in a plan.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Schemes and Dialogue for Explainable Planning

Mahesar,

Parsons

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being increasingly deployed in practical applications. However, there is a major concern whether AI systems will be trusted by humans. In order to establish trust in AI systems, there is a need for users to understand the reasoning behind their solutions. Therefore, systems should be able to explain and justify their output. In this paper, we propose an argument scheme-based approach to provide explanations in the domain of AI planning. We present novel argument schemes to create arguments that explain a plan and its key elements; and a set of critical questions that allow interaction between the arguments and enable the user to obtain further information regarding the key elements of the plan. Furthermore, we present a novel dialogue system using the argument schemes and critical questions for providing interactive dialectical explanations.

show abstract

Argument-Based Plan Explanation

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

Representing pure Nash equilibria in argumentation

Representing pure Nash equilibria in argumentation

An Architecture for Argumentation-Based Epistemic Planning: A First Approach With Contextual Preferences

Argument Schemes and Dialogue for Explainable Planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About