Automated rationale generation is an approach for real-time explanation generation whereby a computational model learns to translate an autonomous agent's internal state and action data representations into natural language. Training on human explanation data can enable agents to learn to generate human-like explanations for their behavior. In this paper, using the context of an agent that plays Frogger, we describe (a) how to collect a corpus of explanations, (b) how to train a neural rationale generator to produce different styles of rationales, and (c) how people perceive these rationales. We conducted two user studies. The first study establishes the plausibility of each type of generated rationale and situates their user perceptions along the dimensions of confidence, humanlike-ness, adequate justification, and understandability. The second study further explores user preferences between the generated rationales with regard to confidence in the autonomous agent, communicating failure and unexpected behavior. Overall, we find alignment between the intended differences in features of the generated rationales and the perceived differences by users. Moreover, context permitting, participants preferred detailed rationales to form a stable mental model of the agent's behavior.
Explanation generation can be described as a form of post-hoc interpretability @cite_41 @cite_13 ; explanations are generated on-demand based on the current state of a model and---potentially---meta-knowledge about how the algorithm works. An important distinction between interpretability and explanation is that explanation does not elucidate precisely how a model works but aims to give useful information for practitioners and end users. @cite_20 conduct a comprehensive survey on trends in explainable and intelligible systems research.
@cite_41 @cite_13 @cite_20
2122514299 2963609017 2406423292 2883512601
Most previous work on trainable language generation has focused on two paradigms: (a) using a generation decisions of an existing generator. Both approaches rely on the existence of a handcrafted generation component, which is likely to limit their scalability to new domains. The first contribution of this article is to present Bagel, a fully data-driven generation method that treats the language generation task as a search for the most likely sequence of semantic concepts and realization phrases, according to Factored Language Models (FLMs). As domain utterances are not readily available for most natural language generation tasks, a large creative effort is required to produce the data necessary to represent human linguistic variation for nontrivial domains. This article is based on the assumption that learning to produce paraphrases can be facilitated by collecting data from a large sample of untrained annotators using crowdsourcing—rather than a few domain experts—by relying on a coarse meaning representation. A second contribution of this article is to use crowdsourced data to show how dialogue naturalness can be improved by learning to vary the output utterances generated for a given semantic input. Two data-driven methods for generating paraphrases in dialogue are presented: (a) by sampling from the n-best list of realizations produced by Bagel's FLM reranker; and (b) by learning a structured perceptron predicting whether candidate realizations are valid paraphrases. We train Bagel on a set of 1,956 utterances produced by 137 annotators, which covers 10 types of dialogue acts and 128 semantic concepts in a tourist information system for Cambridge. An automated evaluation shows that Bagel outperforms utterance class LM baselines on this domain. A human evaluation of 600 resynthesized dialogue extracts shows that Bagel's FLM output produces utterances comparable to a handcrafted baseline, whereas the perceptron classifier performs worse. Interestingly, human judges find the system sampling from the n-best list to be more natural than a system always returning the first-best utterance. The judges are also more willing to interact with the n-best system in the future. These results suggest that capturing the large variation found in human language using data-driven methods is beneficial for dialogue interaction. Deep models that are both effective and explainable are desirable in many settings; prior explainable models have been unimodal, offering either image-based visualization of attention weights or text-based generation of post-hoc justifications. We propose a multimodal approach to explanation, and argue that the two modalities provide complementary explanatory strengths. We collect two new datasets to define and evaluate this task, and propose a novel model which can provide joint textual rationale generation and attention visualization. Our datasets define visual and textual justifications of a classification decision for activity recognition tasks (ACT-X) and for visual question answering tasks (VQA-X). We quantitatively show that training with the textual explanations not only yields better textual justification models, but also better localizes the evidence that supports the decision. We also qualitatively show cases where visual explanation is more insightful than textual explanation, and vice versa, supporting our thesis that multimodal explanation models offer significant benefits over unimodal approaches. In this paper we examine the general problem of generating preferred explanations for observed behavior with respect to a model of the behavior of a dynamical system. This problem arises in a diversity of applications including diagnosis of dynamical systems and activity recognition. We provide a logical characterization of the notion of an explanation. To generate explanations we identify and exploit a correspondence between explanation generation and planning. The determination of good explanations requires additional domain-specific knowledge which we represent as preferences over explanations. The nature of explanations requires us to formulate preferences in a somewhat retrodictive fashion by utilizing Past Linear Temporal Logic. We propose methods for exploiting these somewhat unique preferences effectively within state-of-the-art planners and illustrate the feasibility of generating (preferred) explanations via planning. Existing visual explanation generating agents learn to fluently justify a class prediction. However, they may mention visual attributes which reflect a strong class prior, although the evidence may not actually be in the image. This is particularly concerning as ultimately such agents fail in building trust with human users. To overcome this limitation, we propose a phrase-critic model to refine generated candidate explanations augmented with flipped phrases which we use as negative examples while training. At inference time, our phrase-critic model takes an image and a candidate explanation as input and outputs a score indicating how well the candidate explanation is grounded in the image. Our explainable AI agent is capable of providing counter arguments for an alternative prediction, i.e. counterfactuals, along with explanations that justify the correct classification decisions. Our model improves the textual explanation quality of fine-grained classification decisions on the CUB dataset by mentioning phrases that are grounded in the image. Moreover, on the FOIL tasks, our agent detects when there is a mistake in the sentence, grounds the incorrect phrase and corrects it significantly better than other models.