Showing 1–14 of 14 results for author: Vasileiou, S L

How Do People Revise Inconsistent Beliefs? Examining Belief Revision in Humans with User Studies

Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Antonio Rago, Maria Vanina Martinez, William Yeoh

Abstract: Understanding how humans revise their beliefs in light of new information is crucial for developing AI systems which can effectively model, and thus align with, human reasoning. While theoretical belief revision frameworks rely on a set of principles that establish how these operations are performed, empirical evidence from cognitive psychology suggests that people may follow different patterns wh… ▽ More Understanding how humans revise their beliefs in light of new information is crucial for developing AI systems which can effectively model, and thus align with, human reasoning. While theoretical belief revision frameworks rely on a set of principles that establish how these operations are performed, empirical evidence from cognitive psychology suggests that people may follow different patterns when presented with conflicting information. In this paper, we present three comprehensive user studies showing that people consistently prefer explanation-based revisions, i.e., those which are guided by explanations, that result in changes to their belief systems that are not necessarily captured by classical belief change theory. Our experiments systematically investigate how people revise their beliefs with explanations for inconsistencies, whether they are provided with them or left to formulate them themselves, demonstrating a robust preference for what may seem non-minimal revisions across different types of scenarios. These findings have implications for AI systems designed to model human reasoning or interact with humans, suggesting that such systems should accommodate explanation-based, potentially non-minimal belief revision operators to better align with human cognitive processes. △ Less

Submitted 11 June, 2025; originally announced June 2025.

Does Your AI Agent Get You? A Personalizable Framework for Approximating Human Models from Argumentation-based Dialogue Traces

Authors: Yinxu Tang, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh

Abstract: Explainable AI is increasingly employing argumentation methods to facilitate interactive explanations between AI agents and human users. While existing approaches typically rely on predetermined human user models, there remains a critical gap in dynamically learning and updating these models during interactions. In this paper, we present a framework that enables AI agents to adapt their understand… ▽ More Explainable AI is increasingly employing argumentation methods to facilitate interactive explanations between AI agents and human users. While existing approaches typically rely on predetermined human user models, there remains a critical gap in dynamically learning and updating these models during interactions. In this paper, we present a framework that enables AI agents to adapt their understanding of human users through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach, called Persona, draws on prospect theory and integrates a probability weighting function with a Bayesian belief update mechanism that refines a probability distribution over possible human models based on exchanged arguments. Through empirical evaluations with human users in an applied argumentation setting, we demonstrate that Persona effectively captures evolving human beliefs, facilitates personalized interactions, and outperforms state-of-the-art methods. △ Less

Submitted 22 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Explainable Distributed Constraint Optimization Problems

Authors: Ben Rachmut, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Nimrod Meir Weinstein, Roie Zivan, William Yeoh

Abstract: The Distributed Constraint Optimization Problem (DCOP) formulation is a powerful tool to model cooperative multi-agent problems that need to be solved distributively. A core assumption of existing approaches is that DCOP solutions can be easily understood, accepted, and adopted, which may not hold, as evidenced by the large body of literature on Explainable AI. In this paper, we propose the Explai… ▽ More The Distributed Constraint Optimization Problem (DCOP) formulation is a powerful tool to model cooperative multi-agent problems that need to be solved distributively. A core assumption of existing approaches is that DCOP solutions can be easily understood, accepted, and adopted, which may not hold, as evidenced by the large body of literature on Explainable AI. In this paper, we propose the Explainable DCOP (X-DCOP) model, which extends a DCOP to include its solution and a contrastive query for that solution. We formally define some key properties that contrastive explanations must satisfy for them to be considered as valid solutions to X-DCOPs as well as theoretical results on the existence of such valid explanations. To solve X-DCOPs, we propose a distributed framework as well as several optimizations and suboptimal variants to find valid explanations. We also include a human user study that showed that users, not surprisingly, prefer shorter explanations over longer ones. Our empirical evaluations showed that our approach can scale to large problems, and the different variants provide different options for trading off explanation lengths for smaller runtimes. Thus, our model and algorithmic contributions extend the state of the art by reducing the barrier for users to understand DCOP solutions, facilitating their adoption in more real-world applications. △ Less

Submitted 19 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Inferring Implicit Goals Across Differing Task Models

Authors: Silvia Tulli, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Mohamed Chetouani, Sarath Sreedharan

Abstract: One of the significant challenges to generating value-aligned behavior is to not only account for the specified user objectives but also any implicit or unspecified user requirements. The existence of such implicit requirements could be particularly common in settings where the user's understanding of the task model may differ from the agent's estimate of the model. Under this scenario, the user m… ▽ More One of the significant challenges to generating value-aligned behavior is to not only account for the specified user objectives but also any implicit or unspecified user requirements. The existence of such implicit requirements could be particularly common in settings where the user's understanding of the task model may differ from the agent's estimate of the model. Under this scenario, the user may incorrectly expect some agent behavior to be inevitable or guaranteed. This paper addresses such expectation mismatch in the presence of differing models by capturing the possibility of unspecified user subgoal in the context of a task captured as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) and querying for it as required. Our method identifies bottleneck states and uses them as candidates for potential implicit subgoals. We then introduce a querying strategy that will generate the minimal number of queries required to identify a policy guaranteed to achieve the underlying goal. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in inferring and achieving unstated goals across various tasks. △ Less

Submitted 29 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs

Authors: Antonio Rago, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Francesca Toni, Tran Cao Son, William Yeoh

Abstract: Gradual semantics (GS) have demonstrated great potential in argumentation, in particular for deploying quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) in a number of real-world settings, from judgmental forecasting to explainable AI. In this paper, we provide a novel methodology for obtaining GS for statement graphs, a form of structured argumentation framework, where arguments and relations… ▽ More Gradual semantics (GS) have demonstrated great potential in argumentation, in particular for deploying quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) in a number of real-world settings, from judgmental forecasting to explainable AI. In this paper, we provide a novel methodology for obtaining GS for statement graphs, a form of structured argumentation framework, where arguments and relations between them are built from logical statements. Our methodology differs from existing approaches in the literature in two main ways. First, it naturally accommodates incomplete information, so that arguments with partially specified premises can play a meaningful role in the evaluation. Second, it is modularly defined to leverage on any GS for QBAFs. We also define a set of novel properties for our GS and study their suitability alongside a set of existing properties (adapted to our setting) for two instantiations of our GS, demonstrating their advantages over existing approaches. △ Less

Submitted 27 May, 2025; v1 submitted 29 October, 2024; originally announced October 2024.

TRACE-CS: A Synergistic Approach to Explainable Course Scheduling Using LLMs and Logic

Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh

Abstract: We present TRACE-cs, a novel hybrid system that combines symbolic reasoning with large language models (LLMs) to address contrastive queries in scheduling problems. TRACE-cs leverages SAT solving techniques to encode scheduling constraints and generate explanations for user queries, while utilizing an LLM to process the user queries into logical clauses as well as refine the explanations generated… ▽ More We present TRACE-cs, a novel hybrid system that combines symbolic reasoning with large language models (LLMs) to address contrastive queries in scheduling problems. TRACE-cs leverages SAT solving techniques to encode scheduling constraints and generate explanations for user queries, while utilizing an LLM to process the user queries into logical clauses as well as refine the explanations generated by the symbolic solver to natural language sentences. By integrating these components, our approach demonstrates the potential of combining symbolic methods with LLMs to create explainable AI agents with correctness guarantees. △ Less

Submitted 8 October, 2024; v1 submitted 5 September, 2024; originally announced September 2024.

Predicting Customer Goals in Financial Institution Services: A Data-Driven LSTM Approach

Authors: Andrew Estornell, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh, Daniel Borrajo, Rui Silva

Abstract: In today's competitive financial landscape, understanding and anticipating customer goals is crucial for institutions to deliver a personalized and optimized user experience. This has given rise to the problem of accurately predicting customer goals and actions. Focusing on that problem, we use historical customer traces generated by a realistic simulator and present two simple models for predicti… ▽ More In today's competitive financial landscape, understanding and anticipating customer goals is crucial for institutions to deliver a personalized and optimized user experience. This has given rise to the problem of accurately predicting customer goals and actions. Focusing on that problem, we use historical customer traces generated by a realistic simulator and present two simple models for predicting customer goals and future actions -- an LSTM model and an LSTM model enhanced with state-space graph embeddings. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of these models when it comes to predicting customer goals and actions. △ Less

Submitted 22 May, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: Accepted at the FinPlan 2023 workshop at ICAPS 2023

Human-Aware Belief Revision: A Cognitively Inspired Framework for Explanation-Guided Revision of Human Models

Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh

Abstract: Traditional belief revision frameworks often rely on the principle of minimalism, which advocates minimal changes to existing beliefs. However, research in human cognition suggests that people are inherently driven to seek explanations for inconsistencies, thereby striving for explanatory understanding rather than minimal changes when revising beliefs. Traditional frameworks often fail to account… ▽ More Traditional belief revision frameworks often rely on the principle of minimalism, which advocates minimal changes to existing beliefs. However, research in human cognition suggests that people are inherently driven to seek explanations for inconsistencies, thereby striving for explanatory understanding rather than minimal changes when revising beliefs. Traditional frameworks often fail to account for these cognitive patterns, relying instead on formal principles that may not reflect actual human reasoning. To address this gap, we introduce Human-Aware Belief Revision, a cognitively-inspired framework for modeling human belief revision dynamics, where given a human model and an explanation for an explanandum, revises the model in a non-minimal way that aligns with human cognition. Finally, we conduct two human-subject studies to empirically evaluate our framework under real-world scenarios. Our findings support our hypotheses and provide insights into the strategies people employ when resolving inconsistencies, offering some guidance for developing more effective human-aware AI systems. △ Less

Submitted 22 August, 2024; v1 submitted 29 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

On Generating Monolithic and Model Reconciling Explanations in Probabilistic Scenarios

Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh, Alessandro Previti, Tran Cao Son

Abstract: Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems' decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanati… ▽ More Explanation generation frameworks aim to make AI systems' decisions transparent and understandable to human users. However, generating explanations in uncertain environments characterized by incomplete information and probabilistic models remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. Monolithic explanations provide self-contained reasons for an explanandum without considering the agent receiving the explanation, while model reconciling explanations account for the knowledge of the agent receiving the explanation. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models, where the goal is to find explanations that increase the probability of the explanandum while minimizing conflicts between the explanation and the probabilistic human model. We introduce explanatory gain and explanatory power as quantitative metrics to assess the quality of these explanations. Further, we present algorithms that exploit the duality between minimal correction sets and minimal unsatisfiable sets to efficiently compute both types of explanations in probabilistic contexts. Extensive experimental evaluations on various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach in generating explanations under uncertainty. △ Less

Submitted 29 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Approximating Human Models During Argumentation-based Dialogues

Authors: Yinxu Tang, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh

Abstract: Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) aims to develop AI agents that can effectively explain their decisions and actions to human users, fostering trust and facilitating human-AI collaboration. A key challenge in XAIP is model reconciliation, which seeks to align the mental models of AI agents and humans. While existing approaches often assume a known and deterministic human model, this simplification ma… ▽ More Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) aims to develop AI agents that can effectively explain their decisions and actions to human users, fostering trust and facilitating human-AI collaboration. A key challenge in XAIP is model reconciliation, which seeks to align the mental models of AI agents and humans. While existing approaches often assume a known and deterministic human model, this simplification may not capture the complexities and uncertainties of real-world interactions. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic human model through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach incorporates trust-based and certainty-based update mechanisms, allowing the agent to refine its understanding of the human's mental state based on the human's expressed trust in the agent's arguments and certainty in their own arguments. We employ a probability weighting function inspired by prospect theory to capture the relationship between trust and perceived probability, and use a Bayesian approach to update the agent's probability distribution over possible human models. We conduct a human-subject study to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in an argumentation scenario, demonstrating its ability to capture the dynamics of human belief formation and adaptation. △ Less

Submitted 28 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Human-Modeling in Sequential Decision-Making: An Analysis through the Lens of Human-Aware AI

Authors: Silvia Tulli, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Sarath Sreedharan

Abstract: "Human-aware" has become a popular keyword used to describe a particular class of AI systems that are designed to work and interact with humans. While there exists a surprising level of consistency among the works that use the label human-aware, the term itself mostly remains poorly understood. In this work, we retroactively try to provide an account of what constitutes a human-aware AI system. We… ▽ More "Human-aware" has become a popular keyword used to describe a particular class of AI systems that are designed to work and interact with humans. While there exists a surprising level of consistency among the works that use the label human-aware, the term itself mostly remains poorly understood. In this work, we retroactively try to provide an account of what constitutes a human-aware AI system. We see that human-aware AI is a design oriented paradigm, one that focuses on the need for modeling the humans it may interact with. Additionally, we see that this paradigm offers us intuitive dimensions to understand and categorize the kinds of interactions these systems might have with humans. We show the pedagogical value of these dimensions by using them as a tool to understand and review the current landscape of work related to human-AI systems that purport some form of human modeling. To fit the scope of a workshop paper, we specifically narrowed our review to papers that deal with sequential decision-making and were published in a major AI conference in the last three years. Our analysis helps identify the space of potential research problems that are currently being overlooked. We perform additional analysis on the degree to which these works make explicit reference to results from social science and whether they actually perform user-studies to validate their systems. We also provide an accounting of the various AI methods used by these works. △ Less

Submitted 15 July, 2024; v1 submitted 13 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Comments: 9 pages, 1 figure, 1 table

ACM Class: I.2

Dialectical Reconciliation via Structured Argumentative Dialogues

Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Ashwin Kumar, William Yeoh, Tran Cao Son, Francesca Toni

Abstract: We present a novel framework designed to extend model reconciliation approaches, commonly used in human-aware planning, for enhanced human-AI interaction. By adopting a structured argumentation-based dialogue paradigm, our framework enables dialectical reconciliation to address knowledge discrepancies between an explainer (AI agent) and an explainee (human user), where the goal is for the explaine… ▽ More We present a novel framework designed to extend model reconciliation approaches, commonly used in human-aware planning, for enhanced human-AI interaction. By adopting a structured argumentation-based dialogue paradigm, our framework enables dialectical reconciliation to address knowledge discrepancies between an explainer (AI agent) and an explainee (human user), where the goal is for the explainee to understand the explainer's decision. We formally describe the operational semantics of our proposed framework, providing theoretical guarantees. We then evaluate the framework's efficacy ``in the wild'' via computational and human-subject experiments. Our findings suggest that our framework offers a promising direction for fostering effective human-AI interactions in domains where explainability is important. △ Less

Submitted 8 August, 2024; v1 submitted 26 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

On Exploiting Hitting Sets for Model Reconciliation

Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Alessandro Previti, William Yeoh

Abstract: 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… ▽ More 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 $KB_1$ entailing a formula $\varphi$ and a second knowledge base $KB_2$ not entailing it, model reconciliation seeks an explanation, in the form of a cardinality-minimal subset of $KB_1$, whose integration into $KB_2$ 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. △ Less

Submitted 27 September, 2023; v1 submitted 16 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

On the Relationship Between KR Approaches for Explainable Planning

Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh, Tran Cao Son

Abstract: In this paper, we build upon notions from knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) to expand a preliminary logic-based framework that characterizes the model reconciliation problem for explainable planning. We also provide a detailed exposition on the relationship between similar KR techniques, such as abductive explanations and belief change, and their applicability to explainable planning. In this paper, we build upon notions from knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) to expand a preliminary logic-based framework that characterizes the model reconciliation problem for explainable planning. We also provide a detailed exposition on the relationship between similar KR techniques, such as abductive explanations and belief change, and their applicability to explainable planning. △ Less

Submitted 16 December, 2020; v1 submitted 17 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.