As the area of Explainable AI (XAI), and Explainable AI Planning (XAIP), matures, the ability for agents to generate and curate explanations will likewise grow. We propose a new challenge area in the form of rebellious and deceptive explanations. We discuss how these explanations might be generated and then briefly discuss evaluation criteria. Explanations as a research area in AI (XAI) has been around for several decades BID7 BID5 BID10 BID45 BID12 BID40 BID44 BID28 . It has additionally gained momentum recently as evidenced by the increasing number of workshops and special tracks covering it in various conferences (e.g., VIS-xAI, FEAPAI4Fin, XAIP, XAI, OXAI, MAKE-eXAI, ICCBR-19 Focus area).While still growing in use, there have been some approaches to formalizing XAI. BID11 stated that anything calling itself XAI should address the following questions:• Why did the agent do that and not something else?• When does the agent succeed and when does it fail?• When can I trust the agent?However , less thought out is the idea of explanations that are deceptive or rebellious in nature. These forms of explanation can be an entirely new area of discussion and use for certain autonomous agents.The study of deception and rebellion are both rich fields, and many aspects of both that are studied in civilian and military capacities. For example , the area of deception detection works on finding ways to detect inconsistencies BID41 BID22 BID2 . BID17 discuss a number of ways why deception is an important topic for autonomous agents.Studies of rebellion and resistance have investigated how, why, when it does, and doesn't, happen (Martí and Copyright c 2019, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved . BID24 BID33 . The use of both has also been studied BID34 BID1 BID21 BID18 BID30 .The idea of pairing deception and rebellion with explanations may not be intuitive initially. However, in addition to being areas of rich study, deception and rebellion offer key conditions that are of interest to agent reasoning. Predominately, it requires multiple actors (i.e., An actor deceives another actor, or an actor rebels against a coordinator). Additionally, there needs to be some sort of conflict or misalignment between the actors. Either something needs to be in contention for an actor to rebel, or something needs to be in conflict for the actor to use deception. b Rebellion in agents has been a growing area of interest BID9 BID3 BID8 . This area is focused on finding models in which agents can rebel from directives given in certain circumstances. This can include having more upto-date knowledge that would affect the plan, finding opportunities to exploit but may be off-mission, or solving problems or roadblocks before they become an issue even if it is off-mission. discuss three ways in which rebellion could manifest in agents. The expression of a rebellion can consist of either an explicit or implicit act. The focus is either inward or outward facing . Lastly, the interaction initiation can either be reactive or proactive.Deception in agents has been progressing over the last decade, with many discussions on formalizing deception. The majority of this formalism is on the topic of lying BID42 BID38 BID43 . There has also been inroads for more encompassing deception as described by BID39 and BID37 . Of interest here, BID37 defined Quantitative & Qualitative Maxims for Dishonesty as the following maxims:1. Lie, Bullshit (BS), or withhold information as little as possible to achieve your objective.2. Never lie if you can achieve your objective by BS.3. Never lie nor BS if you can achieve your objective by withholding Information.4. Never lie, BS, nor withhold information if you can achieve your objective with a half-truth. A particular topic that has received attention is deceptive, or dishonest , agents in negotiations BID31 BID47 .With these concepts in mind, we will pursue research to answer the following :What kind of reasoning models are required to generate explanations of a deceptive or rebellious nature?
Position paper proposing rebellious and deceptive explanations for agents.
{"src": "scitldr-AIC_train", "paper_id": "Bkxj7a2Q5E"}